I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

House to go into Committee on the Bill on 6 February.

I move—

As hon. members will notice, I commence my motion by thanking the Government for the service it has rendered in this regard. Allow me to state immediately that it was in the 1930s under the Hertzog régime that it was brought pertinently to the attention of the Government of the day that this matter should receive attention and the first funds were devoted to this great problem facing South Africa. Later, in 1946, under the United Party régime, the Soil Conservation Act was passed, for which I want to thank them particularly. But only when the National Party came into power were large sums of money expended on soil conservation and on counteracting the deterioration of the position in our fatherland. I think we owe a particular debt of gratitude for these large sums of money which have been spent over the past ten or 12 years in connection with soil conservation.

Mr. Sneaker, we have a big country, covering nearly 500,000 sq. miles—472,000 sq. miles to be exact. We not only have a big country, but we have a particularly rich country as far as minerals are concerned. In the case of diamonds, for example, it, is almost exactly 100 years ago that diamonds were discovered and they are still being exploited, although there has perhaps been a slight deterioration because while at one time we were the largest diamond producer in the world, we have slipped back slightly. It is not so much that our production has declined, but that the production of other countries has increased. In the case of gold, it is also nearly 100 years ago that the first gold was mined and new discoveries are still taking place to-day. If someone had said 30 years ago that our country was going to develop to the stage it has reached to-day, into an important industrial country, he would have been told that he was slightly mad. It is clear to-day that South Africa stands on the threshold of a period of great development. In addition we have a lovely fatherland with magnificent scenery. But unfortunately, and this was to be expected, we have not been given everything. As far as the fertility of our soil is concerned, our country is not as rich as she is in minerals. As far as that aspect is concerned, we have the unfortunate position that South Africa does not enjoy a high rainfall. It is also noticeable that high rainfall is found to a greater extent in the high-lying parts of our country. According to the statistics, we have 6,501 sq. miles with an annual rainfall of less than five inches; 178,250 sq. miles with a rainfall of between 5.1 inches and 15 inches; 170,000 sq. miles with between 15 inches and 25 inches; 93,000 sq. miles with between 25 and 35 inches; 664 sq. miles with between 35 and 40 inches, and 647 sq. miles with more than 58 inches of rain per annum. Hon. members will also find that most of the high rainfall areas are to be found in the high-lying areas. By far the greatest part of our country has a low rainfall and only a small area has a high rainfall. As I have already said, the areas which do have a high rainfall are the high-lying areas of our country which makes our country so much more vulnerable to soil erosion and the exhaustion of our soil. The result is already clearly noticeable in the erosion which is taking place in various high rainfall areas. When we examine the position in the west and we see how rapidly the high-lying areas of our country are becoming eroded, the position is most disturbing. In addition it so happens, and very fortunate it is too, that we have very strong sunshine accompanied by a high rate of evaporation. The sun which brings life also has a detrimental effect on our soil because there is a very high rate of evaporation. The sun which brings life, at the same time brings destruction when the soil is exposed. It is the sun which causes weathering. When the sun shines down on the exposed earth all day long, the land becomes a desert but when there is vegetation, the sun gives protection and life. When the soil is exposed, the land is placed in a very dangerous position. After it had been formed over many years and centuries we as farmers received our soil in its virgin condition. The fertility of the soil had been built up over the centuries. But as has happened everywhere in the world, from the time that man first established himself on the land, he started with his work of destruction. As far as farming is concerned, we have now reached the third stage. In the first stage the farmer did not do so much damage because the farmers of those days I do not want to discuss at this stage the circumstances under which they lived—were to a large extent merely self-supporting. They only tried to meet their daily needs, to provide everything they themselves required. But even at that time man began with his first work of destruction, for example by fire. In these high-lying areas where he burned the veld and the shrubs the natural protection of the soil was destroyed. This caused debris (opdrifsels) which prevent the water from draining away. This burning away of the natural vegetation was the first step towards destroying the soil In the second stage of farming in South Africa the farmers were encouraged to produce for foreign markets. During that period the farmer began to plough his land and to produce on a large scale for the world markets This development collapsed in the 1930s during the world depression. But the farmers then started to destroy our soil on a larger scale. From then on, with the increase in our population, with the development which has taken place in the spheres of mining and industry, the pace has accelerated. I think I am right in saying that we have to feed approximately 15,000,000 people in our country to-day and it is clear in view of our rapid development that in the near future we shall have to feed from 20,000,000 to 30,000,000 people in South Africa.

This development was slow in starting originally and it took nearly 200 years before the first bale of wool was exported from South Africa. But thereafter, particularly once the mines had started, the development took place at a very rapid rate and as it accelerated, our needs increased. It is clear that as a result we have made ever-increasing demands on the soil of South Africa. Just to quote what one authority thinks of the position we have already reached, I want to read from Part I of the “Farmers’ Handbook” which has just been issued. It says: “Since 1914 more than one-quarter of the original fertility reserves of the Union have been destroyed by soil erosion.” Mr. Speaker, if at this stage in our development we find that one-quarter of the reserves which had been built up over the centuries have already been exhausted, then South Africa is in a most dangerous position as far as her soil is concerned. After all it is clear that for the sake of its future any nation must protect its soil most jealously. During this period we have taken various steps. If we want to follow a stable agricultural policy, the protection of our soil must be approached in two ways. There are two aspects which threaten the implementation of such a stable policy. The first aspect is one to which we have given attention especially in recent times, namely the detrimental effects of fires, the destruction of our soil by fires, followed by over-grazing and the mismanagement of the I think that considerably aspect of our lands. But I think that considerably less attention has been paid to the second aspect, although I admit with gratitude that some consideration has in fact been given to it. As far as the first aspect is concerned, I trust that the hon the Minister will be able to tell us to what extent we have, in his opinion, already succeeded in protecting our soil. Great strides have been made; tremendous expenditure has been incurred, but as far as that aspect is concerned we are not interested in expenditure; not that it is of no account, but what we are interested in is the results which have been achieved, to what extent we have succeeded, with the assistance of the funds which have been spent in halting the tremendous incidence of soil erosion. As Dr. Ross says, more than 300,000,000 tons of soil flow to the sea annually. I accept that the Minister will not be prepared to say at this stage what the position is exactly, because I know that many districts have only been proclaimed in recent years and that there are still districts which have not yet been proclaimed. However, he can surely give us some indication of what the position is, bearing in mind that many of the districts have already been receiving attention for more than ten years. He can also tell us whether he considers that he has made any progress towards solving the problem in those areas, and whether he will be able in the future to take steps to solve this tremendous problem facing South Africa. I must say that the handbook is not very optimistic about this matter. It says—

In other words, and we agree entirely, the longer we fail to take measures to solve this problem, the more difficult the position will become. We must reach the stage where we can say that the position is no longer deteriorating, but once that position is reached, it is clear that it will still cost South Africa enormous sums of money to solve this problem finally. But whatever it may cost, we must tackle this problem unless South Africa is simply to be allowed to turn into a desert. We must decide whether South Africa is simply to be allowed to deteriorate into a desert, or whether she wishes to save herself.

But I now turn to the second aspect, the aspect which has received less attention, namely the exhaustion of our arable land as a result of the protracted cultivation of that land without attention being paid to the fertility and the stability of the structure of the soil. Mr. Speaker, combating this deterioration has also become a very serious problem already. I just want to quote the remarks recently made by Mr. Robertson, Director of the Veld Trust, as a result of which an article appeared in the Transvaler reading as follows—

While we are faced with such a tremendous surface area and by the methods which our farmers often use, we are continuing to expose our soil and this is going on year after year. The Department’s Report states that 86 per cent of our land in the High Veld areas has already been under the plough for more than 25 years. That soil is being exposed to a tremendous rate of evaporation. At the outset I referred to the effect of evaporation on our soil. Professor Leppan says that in Johannesburg, which he takes as an example, evaporation in the case of open water exceeds 73 inches, that is to say, it is 2.3 times our rainfall. And in other areas it is still greater.

At this stage we therefore ask for the following three things. Firstly we ask that a thorough investigation should be instituted, that a soil survey should be undertaken, and that research should be expedited and extended. This is urgently necessary. Before discussing this aspect further, I want to say that some attention has been given to the matter recently. I am thinking for example of the grass ley crops. This scheme has been put into operation for an experimental period of three years. Many farmers are making use of this scheme with Government subsidies, and many farmers are also doing so without Government subsidies. But it is clear, even on the basis of the departmental reports, that we shall have to go much further than merely introducing these grass ley crops. They say that it will now have to be decided what is to be done. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to tell us what success has been achieved with this scheme. It seems clear to me that to date the scheme has not been a complete success in all the various areas but it is also clear that in many cases it has built up the soil, even as regards grazing. But it is also clear from the reports that these grass ley crops can only improve the fertility of the soil up to a certain point, and that they cannot take it any further. I hope that the Minister will extend this aspect of the work, and that he will not only use specific types of grass, but that the scheme can be extended to other types of grass because it is clear that we are beginning to cover our soil to a greater extent than in the past. It is also clear that at this stage the grass ley crops involve extremely heavy expenditure. As a fodder this type of grass is often so expensive that the farmer finds it easier to buy the fodder rather than plant the grass ley crop and use it for grazing. Furthermore, it is difficult, particularly for the smaller farmer, to make use of this scheme and in many cases it is unpractical for him to do so because he is faced with financial difficulties. Because it is clear that if a farmer owns less than 200 morgen, he cannot put from an eighth to a quarter of his land under grass ley crops. I say this with particular reference to the report of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing which points out that it is especially the younger farmer to-day who is in a difficult position. The report states that it also appears that the younger farmers, namely the age group below 40 years, have proportionately by far the heaviest debt burden. In the eastern Free State districts approximately one-third of the farmers do not have any debts at all, and the average debt burden of the farmers amounts to £6.8 per morgan. This type of young farmer whom we should like to help, will find it unpractical to allow such a large proportion of his land to lie fallow for three to four years. What we ask in the first place—right now—is that proper research into our soil should be expedited. A full survey of South Africa’s soil has not yet been undertaken. We must undertake a survey and we hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to tell us to-day that he will expedite this matter so that a proper survey of the whole country can be undertaken. The aim is not merely to determine the various types of soil although that is important. I understand that we have approximately 24 different types of soil. But this survey is also necessary to determine the depth and the ability of the soil to retain humidity, a factor which is determined particularly by the depth of the soil. It is essential, particularly at this stage, that the farmers should be fully informed in this regard and that the Government and the Department should be fully informed, so that they can make the necessary recommendations to the farmers. It is also necessary that these extension and technical services should be extended.

Mr. Speaker, to-day we are using fertilizers on a large scale. Their use is increasing continuously and the farmers are using more fertilizer every year. But are the fertilizer mixtures which are being used to-day the correct ones? Can the Department, without undertaking a proper soil survey, tell us what type of fertilizer we should use? I find in the report of the Department for 1957 that during that year 962,000 tons of fertilizer to the value of £20,000,000 were used. Of that total 572,000 tons were phosphate fertilizers while 318,000 tons were fertilizer mixtures. Let us just refer for a moment to the Department’s latest report—

This is the finding of the Department in its report for 1957—

Just the one. Then the report discusses mixtures in connection with certain regions, and states that most mixtures contain potash and nitrogen. The report then says that in Natal potash was of some value “but that in other regions the application of potash mixtures is not economically justifiable”. We can now make this inference. Farmers are buying fertilizer mixtures to-day which they are using on a large scale and most of these mixtures do not yield the necessary return. They are actually a waste of money and are destroying our soil.

The third matter to which we ask the Government to give particular attention, is the credit-system—short-term, intermediate and long-term. This was also one of the recommendations of the commission which investigated the depopulation of the platteland. It is clear that under present circumstances the farmer must on occasion look to his immediate future, as the Government also has to do. A farmer draws up his budget and he finds that he has an expenditure of £2,000. He then begins considering where he can economize, as the Government also does with its budget. The Government pares its budget, and like the farmers, it looks to the immediate benefits which it can derive. We know that there has been tremendous development in South Africa which has also involved the farmer in extremely heavy expenditure. For that reason the farmer must consider how he can produce the biggest possible crop in the coming year. The costs of production are so tremendously high under present circumstances that often we cannot blame him: In addition, we often find the phenomenon which was evident during that first period when the farmer burned his veld because he thought only of the immediate advantage. The farmers wanted fresh juicy grazing for their sheep and cattle, without thinking ahead about the consequences which that practice would have over a long period. But to-day to an even greater extent we have reached the position where the farmer is faced with tremendous expenditure and heavy expense in his own personal life. The farmer has children; the schools have been taken away and the children must be placed in hostels; and he must pay their bills. He must consider which accounts it is the most absolutely essential that he should pay. He must have fuel. This is his primary requirement because without fuel he cannot plough. In other words, we cannot even blame him if he does what is often done, as I admit with all due respect to our farmers. They are forced to do so by circumstances. If he can obtain a fertilizer loan and not a fuel loan, he is faced with this problem: He can give his soil fertilizer but how can he plough? Through his co-operative society, he receives a Land Bank loan for the purchase of fertilizer, but he does not have fuel. He does not have available the other short-term methods of financing. What is he to do? Mr. Speaker, are we to blame him if he sells even part of that fertilizer so that he can buy fuel? He is dependent on his crop and for that reason he must in the first place have fuel. I therefore hope that the hon. the Minister will tell us what the position is as regards the commission of inquiry into credit facilities, and what stage the inquiry has reached. I am thankful for the interest and attention which has been devoted to this matter, and for the fact that our credit system—short-term, long-term and other —has now reached the stage where it can be placed on a sound basis.

Mr. Speaker, there is in addition an even greater requirement if we wish to restore the fertility of our soil. We have reached the stage where, just as we did in the case of soil erosion, we must draw up plans, of which the grass ley scheme perhaps represents the first step, but it is not successful enough. We have reached the stage where we shall have to give further attention to this scheme with a view to also subsidizing it on a basis similar to that adopted in the case of soil erosion. By that I do not mean that we should do so by including the subsidy in the price calculations, because that would be wrong. I mean that we should do so on the basis that we are convinced that the farmer will really be able to use the system for improving the structure of his soil and that he will genuinely spend the money for that purpose. But if we want to tackle the problem as it exists to-day, then we must, to a greater extent than we have done hitherto, devise plans and use methods which have not been used hitherto. When we consider the detrimental effects of soil erosion on our soil, if we accept that this process is economically unsound and ruinous, if we accept that principle and when we consider how methods are being used which further soil erosion and the exhaustion of the soil, we shall condemn our farmers in doing so or we can try to justify their actions, but the problem remains and the destruction of the soil of South Africa continues. When we see this position, we as the Government and the state are obliged to take action. The Government is the trustee of our soil during the period in which we live, and it is clear that if the measures we have taken hitherto are inadequate, if they do not half the deterioration of our soil—no matter what these measures may have been, no matter how well-intentioned they may have been— then we must stop for a moment and consider to what extent we have succeeded. To what extent have we solved this problem? Is the problem such that we can combat it? If we are convinced that we cannot combat this problem, either by the one method I have mentioned or any other, or on any basis, it is clear that we shall have to go still further. We shall have to take further steps, steps on which we can rely to place us in such a position in the future that we can at least consider that we have stopped the problem becoming any worse. Then we can go further. But we must first make sure that we have halted the deterioration of our soil, and then we can proceed with its rehabilitation.

That is the first point on which we base our plea. Mr. Speaker, whatever steps have been taken—we are thankful for what this Minister and previous Governments have done—we are particularly thankful that at this stage the exhaustion of our soil in particular is receiving attention and that the necessary steps have already to a certain extent been taken. We are convinced that we shall take these three possible solutions further. As Dr. Bennett said during his visit—and I think we accept this—the position is as follows—

Then Dr. Bennett went on to say this about South Africa after that visit—

This is the problem with which we are faced and with which we were faced during his visit. We have now been struggling for years, and have we succeeded in our efforts? According to the “Farmer’s Handbook” it does not seem as if we have made much progress. Have we succeeded in halting the drying up of our land. Well, Mr. Speaker, if that is so, what are we going to do? The question facing us at this stage is: In what condition will we leave the soil of South Africa to our children, and will they be able to exist on soil which we have robbed of all its fertility and vitality? I have every confidence in the Minister and the Department, and I conclude my speech in the full confidence that as far as this matter is concerned it will receive their serious attention in the future. I want to make one request. We farmers are often accused of economizing unwisely, without thinking of the future. The State is dealing with developed people and with problems. When the State tackles this problem, it must not economize on the necessary expenditure. We must not take into account the problems of lesser importance facing us in the immediate future. If we require funds for research in order to investigate these problems adequately and to make the necessary information available to the farmers, those funds must be made available. Do not let us hesitate to do so. There are fertilizer parasites and implement parasites travelling around selling unpractical fertilizers and implements to the farmer. We must draw up our tests on such a basis that we can say that certain specific implements can really be used in practice and we shall then cease spending millions of pounds on unpractical implements which lie on the lands and the yards of our farms. They are useless. We shall cease this large-scale use of unpractical fertilizers which to a large extent represent a waste of money. Then we shall cease wasting money in this way and we shall cease applying the wrong fertilizers to our soil. In that confidence I submit this motion to-day to the House. I hope that it will be accepted on all sides in that spirit, and that we shall tackle this problem facing us to-day without any political considerations coming into the picture.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to second this motion by the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel). He has worded his motion very widely and has explained it very fully. He has covered practically the whole of South Africa and not much remains for us to say. But I should just like to enlarge on one or two points. I know that in recent years the Minister and his Department have done a great deal and that large sums have been spent to further soil conservation, and to try to restore the fertility of our soil. But, Mr. Speaker, far too little money has nevertheless been spent in that direction and too little has been done because too little money has been spent. To restore the fertility of our soil is certainly one of the great problems facing this country and as far as I am concerned it is firstly a question of retaining what we have and then regaining what has been lost. When we consider the position in the eastern Free State to which the hon. member has referred, then I know of land which has been ploughed for 70 and 80 years, and which is still being ploughed to-day. Sixty or 70 years ago the farmers used the following method to restore the fertility of the soil in those areas. New land was ploughed; mealies were sown on it. Nothing else was done—they simply sowed their crops and that was all. They used the land for two years in that way and then placed it under wheat. After it had been under wheat for some years, they would let it lie fallow because land was still plentiful. Farms were big. Consequently the soil regained its fertility over the years. The position to-day is quite different. The farms have become very small. That method can no longer be used to-day and consequently other methods must be applied. Because the farms have become small as a result of the land hunger and high prices, the young beginner cannot buy a large farm and he has to cultivate every inch of available land to make a living. Consequently the only way in which he can do so is by the application of fertilizers. As the hon. member for Christiana has already said, confusion prevails amongst the farmers as to what type of fertilizer should be used. The Department supplies information, but then the fertilizer company representatives come and tell quite a different story. They are also very ready to tell the farmer what mixtures he should use. We have reached the stage where the farmers are using these mixtures and they are going so far as to apply fertilizer before they have planted their mealies, and are applying nitrogen when the mealies are six or 12 inches high, and again when they are three feet high. In this way they are achieving tremendous yields. But, Mr. Speaker, how long can that method be used before the soil eventually becomes exhausted? Because fertilizer alone cannot restore the fertility of our soil. We shall have to find another method, and for that purpose the Department of Agricultural Technical Services requires very well-trained people who will not only work in this field for a short time. They will have to be set aside so that they can concentrate on this work alone, namely on the restoration of the fertility of our soil. The other services must continue as usual. I know that such a task is a long-term undertaking but we shall have to tackle it if we still want to feed the people of South Africa in 50 years’ time. We sometimes find that we are faced with a problem and that a temporary solution is provided. I know that at one time the farmers were experiencing great difficulties, and were told: You must reintroduce the stock factor in to your crop farming. The farmers tried this method and they went in for that type of farming on a large scale. But we now find that if the mealie farmer ploughs his mealie stalks into the soil and does not bring any stock onto his lands at all, it is better for his soil. It is better for him to plough his stalks into the soil and not bring any stock onto the land. He then achieves better results. The following question now arises—and we do not know the answer. We therefore say that the Department of Technical Services must undertake further research. In the long run will it be best to plough the stalks into the soil, or will it be best to make use of the stock factor? These are all problems with which the farmers are faced to-day. They are not certain. I know the Department is not certain either, and we should like sufficient funds to be made available to achieve that certainty. We have found that when fertilizer is applied on a large scale the soil eventually reacts. Eventually it becomes acid from all the fertilizer, and then we are told that we must now apply agricultural lime. The farmers use agricultural lime and it does correct the acidity to a certain extent, but it does not restore the fertility of the soil. I should like to add that the farmers, according to the hon. member for Christiana, are spending approximately £20,000,000 per annum on fertilizers. I wonder what return the farmers are actually getting from that £20,000,000. How much of that expenditure was unnecessary, how much do the plants absorb, and what happens to the other fertilizer because next year we have to apply fertilizer again? They say that 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the fertilizer is absorbed by the plant, but then the plant must be able to absorb 25 per cent in the following year again, and that is not so. We should like to know what happens to the other fertilizer which is applied to the soil.

How is the small farmer who buys land and has to pay a high price for it, ever going to pay for that land when he has to use these expensive fertilizers and meet the high costs with which he is faced in general? By the time he has paid for his land, if he ever does so, that soil is exhausted and he does not have any land which he in turn can hand over to his son for him to make a living. Mr. Speaker, we who come from the farms and who love our soil would like to see our sons in turn being able to make a living on that soil. We do not want them to be given exhausted farms on which they cannot make a living. For that reason it is necessary that the Minister and the Government should consider making additional funds available. We know they are doing what they can and they have already done a great deal, but it is not yet enough. If we wish to maintain ourselves as a nation, we must be prepared to make funds available for that purpose. It is not only in agricultural areas that we find this difficulty. We find people who say: “I have now applied fertilizer but the mealies are turning yellow.” Then the experts say that something has happened to the soil. Some say there is a shortage of zinc or that there is some other deficiency. But has the structure of the soil not been disturbed? But even in the stock farming areas, where grazing plays an important role, we find that to-day there are trace element deficiencies in the grazing which were previously unknown. I attribute this to the over grazing which is taking place generally. When there is over-grazing, we find that the best grass is usually eaten and disappears, and we find inferior grasses taking over the veld. The same applies to shrubs. We have now proclaimed many soil conservation areas and regulations are laid down in those areas, but the legislation is still being contravened on an extensive scale. The danger is that the people who contravene the Act are not punished. We shall have to take more stringent action against the people who are destroying the soil of South Africa by contravening the regulations under the Soil Conservation Act. In many areas one travels through the lands and one sees a wire fence. On one side of the fence there is magnificent veld and it looks as if there is no drought, but on the other side of the fence no animal can exist any longer and inferior grasses and shrubs are starting to grow. This is a crime which is being committed against the soil and we shall have to take action. Any soil which does not have a protective covering at all times, particularly during the rainy season and when the sun is very hot, will be destroyed. It is not only that evaporation takes place more rapidly, but when it rains, the soil cannot absorb the water because it runs away too quickly. But when the soil has a protective covering, we find that the farmers can go without rain for longer periods than is otherwise the case.

We have been told about the grass ley crops. Many experiments have been carried out. Unfortunately it has by no means been sufficiently tested as yet, but my experience has been that the grass ley system is a very expensive system and the farmer canot afford it. The Department must try to devise a cheaper system in order to restore the fertility of the soil. If the Government and the Minister cannot find more technicians to guide us along the right road as far as soil fertility is concerned, it will cost the country far more in the future because to-day every farmer has to undertake his own experiments and not all our farmers can do so. It will cost the country an enormous amount and it will mean the ruination of many of our farmers. For that reason it is economically sound that the Government should make large sums available for research in this direction. It will still be far cheaper for us to spend millions of pounds on this research, instead of the farmers perhaps having to spend £30,000,000 and being unable to tell us what they have learnt.

My experience is that when one s soil is so neglected that it becomes exhausted, it takes longer to restore the soil’s fertility than it took to destroy it. The reclamation period is longer than the period of destruction. We as producers are very grateful to the Government that it has at last begun to devote funds on a far larger scale than in the past to the restoration of the fertility of our soil and for providing guidance to our farmers, but I hope and trust that on the next Estimates we shall not take into account what advantage it will bring us to-morrow, but what advantage it will bring us over the next 50 years, and that a large nest-egg will be set aside for soil conservation.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to move the following amendment—

Mr. Speaker, shortly after the last war I was travelling in a train. With me in the compartment was a German officer and jokingly I said to him: “You Germans have really caused many wars.” He replied: “No, you must not blame the Germans for that. Go to East Germany. Neither is it the East Germans who have caused these wars, but a grass called Seredella.” He said that in earlier times Prussia was one of the poorest countries in the world. They then discovered this wonder grass Seredella which enriched their soil and increased the soil’s carrying capacity. The Prussians became rich and later overran their neighbours and to-day they think they can conquer the whole world. I am mentioning this merely because it is an interesting story which has also had its repercussions amongst us in the Western Province because lupins were also introduced into the Western Province at about the time as Seredella came to us. Between the two, Seredella and lupins, they have not placed the Western Province in a position where she can make war on the Transvaal and the Free State, but they have helped greatly to improve our financial position.

To show how poor the South African soil is, it is interesting to examine the comparative figures issued by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations last year. We find that in the case of wheat, the yield in France is 2,080 kilograms per hectare. In Italy it is 2,030, in West Germany 2,830 and in Eastern Germany, where we find Seredella, 3,100. In the case of Russia the figure is 1,150, in England, 3,080 and in South Africa only 560. This shows that South Africa is producing 560 kilograms of wheat per hectare, while England is producing 3,080 kilograms.

That does not prove that there has been deterioration.

No, I am merely showing how poor our soil is. Production in South Africa is the lowest of all the countries I have mentioned. In the case of mealies the position is the same. In America with an area of 29,674,000 hectares their average production is 3,250 kilograms per hectare, as against South Africa’s 1,010. Such figures make us realize the tremendous backlog with which we are faced. [Interjections.] I do not know what those few hon. members are trying to say. What are they trying to prove? It is their own motion which asks the Government to help restore soil fertility. I am not criticizing anyone at this stage; that will come later. I am merely mentioning these facts to show that the fertility of our soil is low, and that our production is low.

What can we do to improve the fertility of our soil and to increase our production? Allow me to say at the outset that I think all South Africa is grateful to the small group of officials who are trying their best under very difficult circumstances to provide guidance to the farmers and to undertake research. But it is not only the officials but private companies as well who have helped in the field of research. I hope the Minister will tell me, but my information is that the fertilizer companies have employed private persons trained in agronomics to assist in farm planning, and that the State has asked that they should cease doing so because their activities overlap the work of the Department. I do not know why the Minister has done that, if it was done on his instructions, but what is true is that certain farmers who were fortunate enough to receive this assistance from private companies showed that this planning was completely successful. For many years there has been and there still is a shortage of officials, but I want to repeat that the small number of officials have done very good work.

But I think that the main cause of our difficulties is not so much attributable to the Minister of Technical Services, but to the fact that soil fertility is so closely linked with the prices received for the farmers’ products, and we have to admit that to a large extent this is an economic problem. I want to point out to the Minister that one of his own officials, Dr. J. C. Neethling, has said during this very year—

He goes on to say that it is pointless telling the farmer that he should farm in accordance with a static system; as long as A and B earn more than C and D, he will do what A and B are doing. For so long as the farmers’ products earn such low prices, soil conservation and all the information which is being provided will not be of much avail.

At this stage I, as a farmer of the Western Province, should also like to express in public my appreciation and I think that of the whole Western Province, to a private person, Mr. Wagner, who is now deceased but who lived at Malmesbury and who, as a private individual, introduced lupins to South Africa and proved their value. Fortunately Malmesbury has not forgotten him and his memory is honoured there. Lupins have shown us in the Western Province what new methods and a more scientific method of farming can do. The sheep population of the Western Province to-day is practically the highest per morgen in the Union, and per morgen we are probably the biggest wool producers. This will give hon. members an idea of what research can do for the farmers. But at the same time we are worried to-day. The experts tell us that virus diseases can easily destroy the lupins and that this is already happening in certain areas. I should like to ask the Minister what research is being undertaken to provide another crop to replace lupins if the worst should happen to lupins. Is the Department for example undertaking research into vetches and what results have been achieved?

I then come to the second point, to which the previous speaker referred incorrectly, namely the question of fertilizers. Let there be no doubt that without fertilizer it will be simply impossible to restore the fertility of our soil. The mover of the motion has asked why I do not want to thank the Government. I shall now tell the House why. It is because this Government is the very Government which has treated us grain farmers in the Western Province, and also the mealie farmers who have to use fertilizer, in a way which we do not deserve. I want to tell the House what I mean. I must sell my products on the world market. In England the Government subsidizes the farmer by paying one-quarter to one-third of the selling price of fertilizer. This Minister gives us £1 per ton. What is the position? The British farmer pays £20 9s. 6d. per ton for sulphate of ammonia. In South Africa it costs £20 1s. 6d. But the British Government gives its farmers a subsidy of £9 9s., and the British farmers therefore only pay £11 0s. 6d. But the Minister gives me a subsidy of £1 and I have to pay £19 1s. 6d. It is well known that South Africa’s soil is particularly deficient in phosphates. In England the price of phosphates is £13 15s. per ton, with a subsidy of £6 9s., so the farmer pays £7 6s. In South Africa the price is lower. It costs £11 3s. 8d. but we are given a subsidy of £1, and our farmers pay therefore nearly £3 per ton more than the British farmer. This is bad enough, but this Government has now gone a little further. Two-thirds of the phosphates used in South Africa are imported and one-third is made locally by Foscor. By way of agreements or compulsion—I do not know how—this Government is now forcing the fertilizer companies to buy one-third of their phosphates from Foscor at £1 per ton more than the price at which they can import it. We are therefore subsidizing Foscor, and the Minister is not subsidizing us. The mover of the motion says that we are spending £20,000,000 on fertilizer, of which more than half is represented by phosphates. The Minister is asking the farmer to subsidize Foscor. That is what it amounts to. He is giving us £1 so that we can pay Foscor £1 more than the price for which we can buy fertilizer on the open market.

But that is not all. Take a very essential fertilizer, namely sulphate of ammonia. Sasol produces it to-day on a large scale. To keep Sasol going, the wheat farmer, the fruit farmer, the vegetable farmer and the mealie farmer to-day pay from £3 3s. to £4 per ton more because they are being forced to buy it from Sasol instead of importing it at the world price. I therefore cannot thank the Government when it is covertly using the farmer to subsidize Foscor and Sasol. I have no objection to the subsidies which are being paid to those two organizations, but I say that if they are a national necessity, then it is the duty of South Africa as a whole, and not merely of the farmer, to subsidize them. When we take £3 to £4 per ton for sulphate of ammonia, it represents a large amount, particularly when we bear in mind that this Government does not subsidize the farmer, as is apparently the position elsewhere in the world, on the basis of the quality and the nutritional value of the fertilizer he uses, but merely pays the subsidy per ton, whether it be good or bad. I wonder whether the Minister will not consider rather subsidizing the farmers on the basis of the quality of the fertilizer rather than the quantity. You see, Sir, when we examine the comparative prices that the farmers receive for their products in this country as against other countries, we find that the position is far worse still. Notwithstanding the low wages which are paid to farm labourers in this country, I do not know of any business which yields a lower return on its capital than our farming industry in South Africa. I ask the Minister who is a farmer himself, to tell me whether he can earn a return of more than 10 per cent on the capital value of his investment. No farmer receives such a return in South Africa, and no business could exist under those circumstances. When we take the number of tractors which are used per morgen in South Africa and we compare that figure with the position in America and we find that as against 50 morgen per tractor in America we have 100 morgen per tractor in this country, we can see what the backlog is. To-day it is practically a physical impossibility for a young farmer to buy these mechanical implements and to bear the expense of maintenance and of buying the necessary parts which are prohibitively expensive, which he must do to cultivate his farm properly. I believe that the improved cultivation of farms will make a great and immediate contribution to the restoration of the fertility of our soil. Unfortunately we know too little about what happens to the fertilizer which is ploughed into the soil. I do not know and I do not think the Minister knows and I do not think that any of his officials know either. Of course we know that a large proportion is washed away, particularly in the case of nitrogen, but how much phosphate is absorbed by the subsoils and thus by the deep-rooted plants while in the process of being washed away? I do not think that a survey has ever been undertaken to determine that, and I think that the mover of the motion is correct. Fertilizers are being used to-day without our knowing what their value is or what the requirements are. I grant to the Minister that he is faced with a tremendous task because we all know that soil does not only differ from region to region but from farm to farm and sometimes from orchard to orchard, and on occasion even in the same orchard. This makes our task very difficult, but I wonder whether the Minister will go further into the matter and will tell us how he can assist us. Mr. Speaker, ½ per cent, that is to say 10s. in £100, of our national income is being spent on university research, i.e. all types of university research. With its tremendous national income the United States of America spends five times more than us on university research. South Africa spends ½ per cent, on university research as against 2½ per cent in the United States of America. In the case of Russia we find that South Africa compares even more unfavourably.

Can you tell us what they spend on agriculture as against the amount we spend?

No, that I do not know. The Minister is Minister of Agricultural Technical Services, not I. Later on, when I sit down, I shall give him the figures, but for the moment he must get the figures for himself. Mr. Speaker, the Minister has in fact given away what I wanted to say, that namely this Minister always thinks in terms of the thousands of pounds which he is giving to the farmers, while agricultural research is a national service which cannot be measured in terms of the thousands of pounds being given to the farmers.

No, that was a reasonable question. I just want to have the proportion between what America spends on agricultural research as against what we spend on agricultural research in this country.

To-day there is a great staff shortage and also a lack of direction. I was glad to see the South African Agricultural Union has submitted a memorandum in which they raise some very interesting points. Strangely enough they commence by saying exactly what I have now told the Minister—

They then go on and give the Minister certain advice. They say—

And thus I could continue, Sir. The staff, position, as we have said, represents one of the main difficulties. There is dissatisfaction amongst certain extension officers. People with the same ability and the same training who are doing field work find that they are being discriminated against when their position is compared with that of university lecturers with the same qualification. Why? For how long was there a difference between the remuneration of lecturers in agriculture and that of other university lecturers, and why? I understand that that position has now been remedied. But is the Minister prepared to place the salaries of the very people who are rendering agricultural the greatest service, namely the extension officers who have the same qualifications and the same achievements as university lecturers, on the same scale as those of lecturers? Until such time as he is prepared to do so, he will always experience difficulty.

I wanted to say more about this systematic soil survey, to which a previous speaker has also referred, but I think that enough has been said on that point. However, I want to put another matter to the Minister. Onderstepoort for example has a mobile research unit. Would it not be possible for the Minister also to consider making available mobile units for experiments in connection with soil fertility? What happens at the moment is this …

Aeroplanes are used.

No, I am thinking of something more than merely flying around in an aeroplane to see what the countryside looks like. Mr. Speaker, I am thinking for example of the task which is placed to-day on the shoulders of our extension officers. Such an officer is given an area with a very extended radius in certain places; in some cases a radius of 100 miles. It is a physical impossibility for that official to undertake research which will cover the whole district.

He does so from the air.

It is physically impossible to undertake experiments on every type of soil, but as the position is to-day, I am afraid that we are not getting full value for our money. Then I want to raise another matter with reference to what the mover of the motion has said. This relates to the grass ley system. I should like to ask what have been the results of the research which has been undertaken. Where has this research been undertaken; has research been undertaken on farms for example? Then I should like to ask the Minister in what way the grass ley system benefits the grain farmers of the Western Province, for example. The system does not affect us and the hon. member over there still wants me to thank the Minister. We do not benefit from it.

How do lupins, e.g. benefit him?

He can plant lupins. The Minister is the last person who should take credit for lupins. All he does is to buy it at low prices for his thin sheep. He must not take any credit for lupins. Not even his Department nor previous Departments can do so. Credit is due to a private farmer of the Western Province, Mr. Wagner, and the Minister wants me to thank him for what Mr. Wagner has done. I know that since Mr. Wagner started with lupins, research has been undertaken elsewhere, but the person who started with lupins and to whom our thanks are due, is Mr. Wagner and no one else. I repeat that the farmer does not receive a penny in subsidy in the case of lupins. This is an economic undertaking which we started ourselves and with which we are continuing. We do not receive any assistance from the Government in that respect. But a start has been made with the so-called grass ley system in the Transvaal and the Free State and I am beginning to suspect that everything connected with agriculture is seen through the spectacles of the farmers in the Transvaal and Orange Free State. Why is the Minister not prepared to give us the same assistance in the case of lucerne, and if he has any doubts as to the value of lucerne to the grain farmers, he can discuss the matter with his colleague, the Minister of Agricultural Economics.

For years you gave it to the farmers.

We gave it to the farmers and then the Minister took it away and now the hon. member expects me to thank this Minister. The Minister has not done anything for us. I want to know for example what the Minister has done in respect of another matter. One of the main disadvantages of farming in South Africa is the hot sun. And any farmer will tell you and any scientist will confirm it that if one ploughs humus into the soil under the hot summer sun, it becomes scorched in the soil; it becomes scorched and nothing is left.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member opposite is a political organizer and he knows nothing about farming. He must keep quiet when farmers are talking.

(Mr. Scholtz) Order! The hon. member must not be so personal.

I now ask the hon. the Minister what climatic studies have been undertaken in connection with this matter. I hope that the Minister will also tell us clearly what is being done in this regard. I think that this research is important and as far as I know not much is being done in this regard at the moment. Mr. Speaker, if this motion has done nothing else, I think it has made the Minister realize that supporters of all political parties in this country are very concerned about the quality and the fertility of South Africa’s soil. Not so long ago we heard that the “honeymoon” of many of our farmers was over, and if that is so, I am very sorry that there has been such great delay in making effective assistance available to the farmers. And I do not blame this Minister for that position. I do not want to thank him, but I do not want to blame him either. I think that the Minister has a good case to submit to the Cabinet in co-operation with his colleague, the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. This is a national matter which cannot be postponed any longer. We can no longer work on the premise that agricultural research amounts to a subsidy to the farmers. It is not a subsidy; it is a national service which is being provided in the interests of posterity. I move.

I second the amendment. I think both sides of the House are worried about the low fertility and declining productivity of our agricultural soil. I think both sides of the House agree that this is something that should be above politics. I think that all hon. members here are agreed that there is a very strong need for more attention to be given to this matter. I think both sides of the House will also agree that we are very much obliged to our agricultural colleges, our research workers and our extension officers who have been giving a lead under most difficult circumstances, but I think it is also clear from the speeches here that much more must be done. One is inclined to wonder, when one looks at present conditions, what the reason is for this deterioration and the increasing low fertility and productivity of our agricultural land and I want to mention several reasons for this here. In the first place I want to mention large-scale mechanization in agriculture as a result of which far less animal and plant matter is being put back into the soil, with a resultant shortage of humus. It is obvious that as a result of mechanization there is a great shortage of kraal manure. I want to mention as a reason the one-crop system, or monoculture, which is accompanied by a decreasing humus content of the soil and has resulted in a worse structure of the soil. I mention as a reason the up-and-down ploughing of slopes which causes the soil to be washed away. Another reason I would mention is the use of the wrong fertilizer in some cases. I also want to state here that in places where the correct fertilizer was used and where maize was continually being planted and fertilized, although it varied, the maize became yellow and did not grow properly and the crops diminished and much damage was done and the result was much lower productivity. In the same way we find in the wheat areas where fertilizer is applied in the most modern way and where farming is practised on the most modern systems that blackleg and other plant diseases appeared and farmers suffered severe losses. We also find in those areas that oats and barley crops diminished, sometimes as a result of blight and sometimes for other reasons. We find for instance that in the wattle industry a new disease appeared, namely bag-worm which caused thousands of pounds worth of damage and in addition the market collapsed There are many plant diseases in our country. The wrong fertilizer is often used. Damage is being done to our soil fertility by not preserving the moisture content, by the bad drainage of land, particularly low-lying alluvial land in the mountainous winter rainfall area. Sowing has taken place at the wrong density. There are caterpillars, cutworms, lice, finches; there is bad weed control; legumes are planted without the proper treatment, and there are a hundred more reasons I could mention for the low fertility and low productivity of our soil. When I mention them all, Mr. Speaker, you will be able to appreciate why the farmers of South Africa are in such distress, and I mention this as a fact. In 1929-34 there was trouble in the farming industry. The Government then had to spend £5,000,000 on rehabilitation. During the last year the Land Bank and the Farmers’ Assistance Board had to spend £43,000,000. Of this amount three-quarters had to be paid out to creditors and although the creditors are now happier because the farmers have been assisted, the farmers still owe exactly as much as they did before. The State is of course a better creditor but there has been no improvement in the position of the farmers. You must take into consideration that of this amount of £43,000,000 which was spent in the form of loans to farmers the major portion was given as loans of up to 80 per cent of the value of the farmers’ possessions. Then you must accept that in times of general economic prosperity the farmers landed in this parlous position in spite of the fact that the decrease in the price of farmers’ products amounts to only about six per cent per year. In addition you must consider—that will bring home the seriousness of the position to you—that £922,000,000 is invested in agriculture. Mr. Speaker, most of the farmers who are in difficulties are in the grain areas and in those areas where the fertility and the productivity of the soil has diminished. This is what makes us realize the importance of technical services, because to prevent these difficulties it is necessary to improve the fertility and the productivity of the soil. The wrong farming systems were practised before in some areas. Lack of capital led to exploitational cropping and it is still causing it. I think we are all agreed that soil fertility is the most important aspect of farming to-day. A few years ago, according to Dr. Van Deventer of the Free State Co-operative, a survey was made of our agriculture and the productivity of our land and it was then stated that within a period of 70 years there would be no more top-soil because it would all have been washed away. As we all know, the fertile top-soil is the source of life and growth. Then we ask ourselves: Why then did the farmers use the wrong methods, and why are they still using the wrong methods? In the first place, because our national economy is unbalanced. This came about as the result of the huge industrial development and the development of the mining industry. It had a detrimental effect on farming. The second reason is a shortage of trained labour for the present mechanized agriculture. Mention has been made here of the number of tractors we have in the country to-day. At present we have tractors representing an investment of between £280,000,000 and £300,000,000. These tractors are handled by untrained, raw farm labour and they are battered and destroyed by them. This is a matter which deserves the attention of the Minister. Then I want to mention the fact that the profit margin on production costs is too small and does not produce sufficient capital for adequate development and improvement of the soil. Thirdly, I would like to mention the high costs of farming equipment, prices the farmer cannot afford. I mention a fourth reason, namely the lack of electric power on farms and in thickly populated areas to save labour, and as a fifth reason I mention the lack of adequate credit facilities.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that there is another motion on the Order Paper which deals with economic planning by the Government and the amendment now under consideration deals with the continued low productivity of the soil. The hon. member must therefore not deal too fully with the economic aspect.

I am only continuing on the lines of the mover of the motion when he said that there are insufficient credit facilities for the farmers. Mr. Speaker, I mention as a sixth reason the over-mechnization which came about when products were exported from this country at a time when prices overseas were higher than the local prices. Then I mention the cost of repairs to implements used in agriculture. When we consider that artisans to-day earn 25s. per hour doing repairs it must be clear that repairs form a considerable part of farmers’ expenses.

I want to say here that to restore the fertility of the soil and to restore higher productivity certain things will be necessary and I want to suggest that the Department and the Minister ask the experts to go into this matter. In the first place I want to ask the Minister to give his serious attention to providing training facilities to the non-White labourers the farmers need on their farms. I want to suggest that they follow the example of the Department of Native Affairs, which trains its own people at Fort Cox in the Ciskei. There they train people who have to handle machinery, and they are trained in the Ciskei. Many of the people trained there are enthusiastically snapped up by the farmers. It is quite clear to-day that with the shortage of White labour on farms the farmers are compelled to make more use of non-White labour and the farmer will never be able to restore the fertility and productivity of his soil unless he is able to obtain efficient and trained non-White labour. I want to suggest that the farmers themselves get more training. Unless a farmer has had training himself he will not know how to restore the fertility of his soil. In the report of the Department it is said that only about 15 per cent of new farmers are trained. It is true that the agricultural colleges supply courses and give practical training and they also have short courses, but how many farmers can afford the time to leave their farms (I am talking about established farmers) and go to the agricultural colleges and get instruction in agriculture and the restoration of the fertility of the soil? But before I go into this matter more deeply. I want to ask the Minister to see to it that agricultural colleges give more practical courses. And when I mention “practical training” I still always see this one difficulty, and that is that the young men at these colleges are trained at great expense. They get everything they need. When they go back to their farms and experience a shortage of capital, they find that they have to practice exploitational cropping and that they are unable to improve their agriculture in a practical way and are unable to restore the fertility of the soil. That is why I am asking for more practical training. I mean that a sense of values should be kept in mind to a greater extent in order to bring it within the means of the farmer. That is why I ask that these farmers should get more practical training in the handling of machinery, because we all agree that we will be unable to get higher fertility of the soil unless machinery is used and unless we know how to use it, because where machinery is ruined, the cost of the machinery is too high and it is above the means of the farmer. At the commencement I expressed my appreciation for what has already been done by technicians and by agricultural colleges but now I come to another difficulty and that is the dissemination of knowledge by the Department. It has become clear from the speeches by several members that something is lacking. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Keyter) and the hon. mover of the motion come from the grain areas and the mover of the amendment comes from the Cape Province, from an area where a different form of agriculture is practised. Now there is a wealth of knowledge gathered and assembled by the Department. Much of the information is disseminated through the magazine Farming in South Africa, and much of the information can also be obtained by attending short courses at agricultural colleges, but I have to add that few farmers are able to attend these courses at the agricultural colleges. I want to suggest that the hon. the Minister considers regional publications, supplied free to farmers’ organizations for distribution amongst their members. I want to suggest that more experimental plots be established. The mover of the amendment said that it did not help much to talk about the grass ley crop method which is used in the North. It does not help him because it cannot be practised here. I want to make an appeal for more experimental plots to fit in with the conditions in the different regions.

Further, I want to press for more mobile units which will go out into the country to disseminate the available information. I am convinced that there is very little information which has not yet been obtained but it is not brought to the notice of the farmers; it is not available to them. I want to suggest that mobile units should tour the different regions and areas holding fortnightly courses. I want to repeat that there is a wealth of information in the files of the Department but is not available to the farmers. Then I want to suggest that a agro-economic survey of South Africa be undertaken. It was suggested a number of years ago already. I remember how the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Maree) before he became a Minister, made this request five or six years ago to the Department. That agro-economic survey should include the following: the economic size of productive farm units. Mr. Speaker, there will be no greater productivity and there will be no increased fertility as long as farms are too small and divided up too much. I propose that a special study be undertaken of the integration of animal husbandry with agriculture. It varies from area to area.

But integration is something which belongs to the United Party.

I understand that the hon. member is chairman of the farmers’ group of the Nationalist Party and one feels sorry for that group if the hon. member is unable to contribute anything more than this. I ask that the investigation shall also include the adaptational possibilities of the different parts of the country. In some parts of the country sheep are the best, in other parts cattle and in this way a contribution can also be made to the improvement of the fertility of the soil. This survey should take special notice of the different crops to be planted in certain areas with the necessary rotation of crops. The necessary information should be made available as to the selection of the best seed. In this connection I am disappointed to see that in the maize areas so little hybrid seed is made available to farmers. It is true that there has been a small increase. Last year 79,260 bags of hybrid seed were made available to farmers whilst this year 80,276 bags were made available but that is not sufficient.

The things I have mentioned have already been brought to the notice of the Department and has been receiving the attention of the Department for a long time. For instance I find, as far as maize is concerned, the following remark in the Van Riebeeck publication (eight years ago)—

Several other factors are mentioned in the article to indicate the low fertility and low productivity of the soil. Price increases are also mentioned. But then I also see that the Department says—

After eight years the picture is quite different and in the latest annual report of the Secretary for Agricultural Technical Services which is available, 1958-59 (we are sorry that we have not had one since then) one is given the impression that the Department is aware of the importance of increased fertility. The Department says—

They also give other reasons why it should be done. They say it would undoubtedly contribute to the lowering of the high cost structure of agriculture and then they say—

It is an interesting report, compiled in a very able way, and I want to congratulate the Department on it. I think hon. members on both sides of the House realize that the matters discussed there are of the greatest importance.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) on this important motion which he has introduced and the lucid manner in which he has dealt with it. The subject he has chosen is not only of interest to us as farmers, but it is of interest to the whole of South Africa, because the soil, Sir, is the most valuable asset of any nation; all life spring from that. If a nation neglects and ruins its soil, that nation has become destitute. And because the soil belongs to the people of South Africa it is the responsibility of the farmers of this country not only to improve and protect that soil against erosion and flooding, but also to protect it in such a way that its fertility is retained so that the generation which follows us and which has to carry on with this big and responsible task, will inherit it in an improved condition.

Furthermore when we consider that South Africa is a young country, civilization was only established here 300 years ago, and when we remember that the first nine free burghers started to farm here in 1657 and we think that farming in South Africa really only became an established industry a little over 100 years ago and that the agricultural industry in the Free State and the Transvaal is really only 60 years old, we are amazed at what has been achieved. As far as the Free State and the Transvaal are concerned there was practically nothing left after the Boer War and they had to start right from the beginning. When we study the production figures, we realize what an important function the farmers have fulfilled namely to provide the country with the necessary food. Within this short space of time, of 60 years, they not only succeeded in providing the necessary food, but to show surpluses as well. Only ten years ago, during and after the second world war, consumers stood in queues in the cities and towns because there were shortages in the country and a lack of food, but within this short space of time the farmers have developed our agricultural industry to such an extent that there are surpluses in every field to-day. As I have said, the soil belongs to the nation and that is why it is not only the duty of the farmer to protect the soil, but it is also the duty of the entire nation to do so; it is the task of the Department of Agriculture in particular to assist the farmers by giving them advice and guidance. One sometimes hear irresponsible statements, Sir, for example, that the farmers are being spoonfed. You will agree, Mr. Speaker, that anyone who says that does not know what he is talking about and does not see beyond his nose, because if he considered the true facts he would not say a thing like that. The position is this that every town that comes into existence and every city that grows more and more of our agricultural land is absorbed. Every railway line and every road and every dam which is constructed reduces the surface of our arable agricultural land, and the population is growing on the other hand. If we consider all these things we will certainly not make such irresponsible statements that the farmers are spoonfed when the State fulfils its duty and assists them to look after this valuable asset of the nation for future generations. I repeat that the farmers cannot do that alone. It is the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture to provide the farmers with the necessary advice and sometimes with the necessary financial assistance as well. I want to say that the State has done a tremendous amount in connection with soil conservation. During the years 1947 to 1959 alone an amount of £3,642,000 was paid to farmers for soil conservation works and during that period, till to-day, 17,500 farms have been properly planned. It is clear from that that the Department of Agriculture and the State have up to the present done a tremendous amount to assist the farmers. Like the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) and the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) I too would like to see more extension officers, more technical personnel and other officials to assist us in regard to research etc. but this is a young country, as I have already said, and when everything is considered we should be grateful for what the State and the Department of Agriculture have done. I could give figures, Sir, but I do not want to take up the time of the House. I have no doubt that the Department and the Minister themselves would like to provide better services and do more research work and give more guidance, but the personnel is simply not there. No matter how anxious they are to place more officials at the disposal of the farmers, they simply do not have the men. For that reason we are grateful for what has been done. I think the Minister of Agriculture will agree wiht me that we have now reached a new stage in the agricultural field. We have spent thousands of millions on binding the soil. I do not know whether I heard the hon. member for Drakensberg correctly but I think she said 70 per cent of the arable soil of the Eastern Free State would land in the sea.

I was referring to the top soil.

I could not hear what the hon. member said properly, and probably misunstood her. But I want to invite the hon. member to come to the Eastern Free State and I will show her …

I am not the one who is saying that, it is Dr. van Deventer.

In that case I want to invite Dr. van Deventer to come and see in the Eastern Free State what progress the farmers have made there as far as the combating of soil erosion is concerned. I really think that if a farmer has not reached the stage to-day where he binds the top soil of his land, he is a bad farmer. I honestly think that. I do not think he has any right to blame the Department of Agriculture and to say that the Department will not give him the necessary assistance and guidance to build contour walls and to plan his farm properly. You can take a horse to the water, Sir, but you cannot make it drink.

As I have said we have now reached the second set-up—the most important one. We are conserving our soil but it has become impoverished. There is no doubt about it—the soil has become impoverished. I do not think the Department of Agriculture can argue against that, they will admit that that is the position. It is true that over the years the farmers have farmed unwisely—I must add that they did not do so intentionally, but perhaps through ignorance, they did so not because they did not love the soil, because the farmers truly love the soil of South Africa; we love the soil, and when you love anything you care for it. Just look at the wives of the farmers, Sir, look at my wife. I look after her because I love her. We have reached the stage where I personally, no longer think I have the right manager on my farm. My own knowledge is too defective. We are not trained agricultural experts. The Department of Agriculture should, and I know it will, give us guidance in that new direction. Any person who knows anything about farming knows that if you plough and sow year after year, you will eventually reach the stage where that soil will no longer be capable of producing. We have now reached that stage. We have the fertilizer agents. As far as they are concerned, I differ somewhat from my hon. friend the member for Christiana. I do not know what word he used to describe them, neither do I wish to use any word. I do not regard them as an evil. I regard the erection of fertilizer factories in this country as an important forward step in industry.

I did not talk about the factories, but about the travellers.

Millions of pounds have been invested in South Africa in factories to produce fertilizers. For example, we have a urium fertilizer factory at Modderfontein which cost £10,000,000. It is a good thing that we have that factory. We need the fertilizers—potash, nitrogen, phosphate, etc. But what we want to know is in what ratio our soil needs fertilizer. We need guidance from the Department of Agriculture in that respect and we need that to-day more than ever before. I think the Department will agree with me that by using fertilizer by itself is not such a wonderful tonic—as somebody said to me some time ago—that it will make the soil produce forever. That is not the position. At some later stage other defects manifest themselves. You eventually get to a stage, Sir, where the soil is dead in spite of your having spent thousands of pounds on fertilizers.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion that is one of the main reasons why the farmers have in recent years found themselves in financial difficulties. Production costs have risen and ultimately their margin of profit is so small that they find themselves in financial difficulties. I as a practical farmer, and I think every practical farmer in this House will agree with me, know that during the years when we still ploughed with oxen, the main complaint of the farmers was that their land was being taken in by couch grass (kweek gras) —that accursed couch grass. But as you know, Mr. Speaker, that couch grass was a blessing not a curse. It was the couch grass on our mealie and other lands which prevented the soil from becoming completely impoverished. I cannot help but think that the only way of restoring the fertility to the soil is to introduce proper scientifically planned rotational cropping in which grass—I do not say ouland grass; I am not so sure about that, and I do not say seradella—play its part. I just want to say to the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) that those Germans of whom he is so proud, not only used seradella, but they followed rotational cropping. I should like to see the Department of Agriculture in the position where it can say to me at Bethlehem: Brother, you should go in for rotational cropping. That is my difficulty to-day, Sir—the Department cannot say that to me. I have mentioned this on a previous occasion. I love my soil. I went to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Services and they prepared a rotational crop programme for me. The programme covered a period of ten years, and ouland grass formed part of it for three years and then, a leguminous plant. I had to alternate these two twice. I then asked the official what he thought about rotational cropping and a few days later he told me that he thought it was wonderful and that I would build up my soil by going in for it. I then asked him whether I would make money or go insolvent. He could not reply to that. What he did tell me was that it would be necessary to obtain the services of an agricultural economist to ascertain whether the rotational crop programme was such that I would make money. I want to emphasize to-day that it is of no avail our farmers going in for rotational cropping if they have to die of hunger. The farmer must make money. It must be an economic rotational crop programme. I also believe that the animal factor should be properly introduced so that we will have a properly balanced rotational crop programme. I am now busy with this ten year rotational crop programme and ouland grass forms part of it for three years. And now officials of the Department tell me that ouland grass will not improve my soil. Somebody else again tells me it will. Who must I believe? What must the farmer believe? I should like further research made in order to ascertain which rotational crop programme should be followed.

Somebody said that ouland grass was a failure. I do not think so. Where I farm the soil is light, sandy and loamy. I purchased a piece of ground where the soil had become completely impoverished, the lands were red with sheep sorrell from one end to the other. Sheep sorrell is a sign of soil infertility. That is the last stage of impoverishment. When the soil is completely impoverished it is blood red with sheep sorrell. I planted ouland grass on this land and added super rock phosphate. The land was valueless to me. I could not very well throw it away. It just had to lie there and I was compelled to invest money in it and to try to restore its fertility. I also treated it with large amounts of agricultural lime, added super rock phosphate and planted our land grass, which had been treated with urium. Mr. Speaker, I invite you to come and look at the results. After two years the ouland grass has completely destroyed the sheep’s sorrell and during the recent drought it was the ouland grass which kept my sheep and cows alive, the animals which produced the milk and wool. That is why I say I am not so sure. I am not so sure that the ouland grass is not the magic wand with which to remedy the whole position. I want to give another example. The greatest problem that we as crop farmers in the Eastern Free State are faced with, is the problem of weeds. When you have ploughed fallow land for three or four years, weed becomes the greatest problem and you have to go to great expense to get rid of it. If I put that land under ouland grass for three years and then plough it then it will be free of weed for the first year at least. Something else which I cannot accept is this. When you pull up a tuft of ouland grass you find that the roots are five feet in length—it has a matted root system—and I simply cannot believe that that does not add tons and tons of humus to the soil. As hon. members have said, it may be true that that is probably an expensive procedure. Perhaps the Government will bear that system in mind in their efforts to assist the farmer to restore the fertility to his soil. Because, Mr. Speaker, I assure you that if something is not done to the soil, it will be lost to the nation for ever. I do not want to say more on this subject but I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister of Agricultural and Technical Services to devote all his energies and attention to planning, right methods and research in order to retain the fertility to our soil.

There is one other matter which I should like to raise. I serve on the commission which is inquiring into the question of profits on agricultural implements. Accusations have been made, they were again made to-day that there are millions of pounds worth of agricultural implements lying in disuse on farms. We have been told that agricultural implements to the value of £200,000,000 are lying in disuse on the farms. They have become no more than fowl perches. What is meant by “disuse”? It does not mean that those implements were used for ten or twelve years and could now no longer be used. It means that the farmers bought those implements and found after two or three years that they had bought the wrong implements. That was when those implements were discarded and became fowl perches. A certain doctor in agricultural engineering gave evidence before the commission and this very subject was discussed. I asked that doctor of agricultural engineering whether he could tell me as a practical farmer how I should till my soil; whether I should plough it with a mould board or with a disc plough or whether I should use a “one way” or an off-set disc or a soilmaster or a rotor? He said to me: Mr. Knobel, I am very sorry but I cannot tell you. I asked him who would be able to tell me the best way to till my soil. His reply was that he was afraid that even the Department of Agriculture could not tell me because there had not been sufficient research into that question. That is enough proof to show the Minister that further research should be conducted into this important question and I trust the Minister will respond to the appeals of the farmers and provide them with a solution.

Mr. Speaker I wish to say a few words on this very important subject on behalf of this corner of the House. I make no apologies for intervening in a debate on this subject. As a member of the Board of Trustees of the National Veld Trust for a long number of years, and as one who came from the country and still has interests in the country, this is a subject which is very close to me.

I want at the outset to congratulate the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel), very sincerely, on putting forward this motion, the very first motion which comes from a private member in this Parliament, and a motion dealing with a subject of such vital concern to our land. Indeed Sir, I am not so sure that this may not be the most important economic problem with which we in this country are faced. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) that this subject is one of the most paramount importance. I agree with him completely in what he has said in that regard. I want to make just one further observation and that is this: I agree with those who have said in this debate that this is a subject that must be kept outside the realms of party politics. We have succeeded in keeping this subject out of politics for all these years. It has been very difficult indeed to do that, but all of those who are concerned with this problem have striven to prevent it from becoming a bone of political contention. Of course, that does not mean that there cannot be criticisms of methods or that there cannot be disagreements in regard to how we set about the problems and so on. Obviously nobody would object to that. But I think it would be tragic if this subject ever were to become an item of party politics which, I think, would only bedevil the progress we have to make on a very broad front in tackling this problem.

It is for the reason I have just mentioned that we are going to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. I. A. L. Basson). As the hon. member has explained he wishes to omit the “Thank the Minister” side of the motion. That is the only reason why I intend to support this motion, because I think he is right. I do not think the hon. the Minister himself really wants to be thanked, particularly in regard to this matter. Let me say perfectly frankly that I think the Government has done excellent work in regard to Soil Conservation. There can be no doubt about it. And the previous Government which, after all, put on the Statute Book the Soil Conservation Act, also did excellent work. I think all fair-minded people will admit that. So it is not a case, particularly, of thanking the Minister and, frankly, as far as we are concerned—and I do not think the hon. the Minister will mind if I say this —we would prefer to omit that portion of the motion. Therefore we are happy to support the amendment which, I think, is possibly better worded. However, in saying that, I do not wish for a moment to suggest that the hon. member for Christiana had any intention whatsoever of bringing party politics into this motion. He did not mean it that way at all. It is just that I, personally, have a distaste for the “Thank the Minister” kind of motion. That is the reason why we will support the amendment.

What is the broad, overall position in regard to this problem in South Africa? Let us look at it in its broadest aspect to start with. The position is that some few years ago a very important report to my way of thinking the most important report on this matter that has been presented—was prepared by the Government. It was a report on, shall we say, the general “state of the nation” in. regard to soil conservation. The question was whether South Africa was losing ground in regard to soil conservation, or whether we had reached the point where we could now say that the conservation measures which were being applied all over the country had more or less stabilized the position. I say “more or less” in its broadest sense because, obviously, in many areas the position has not been stabilized. In many areas we are still losing the fight, and tons and tons of precious topsoil are still disappearing from the land. The fertility is going out of the land and we have a tremendous job of work to do to overcome that situation. But, Sir, something like 15 to 20 years ago the situation was terribly alarming. It was estimated that we were losing something like 25 per cent of the fertility of our soil every year, which is something very terrifying indeed. The result of the report two years ago, following an investigation carried out by Dr. Ross, who was previously head of the Soil Conservation Division, and who carried out the investigation on behalf of the Government—the report suggested that we had just about reached the stage when, on the overall picture, we had stabilized the position. That was a tremendously important factor indeed, and a most heartening report. It showed that the tremendous efforts which had been made by the farming community, with the indirect assistance of the townsfolk over the last 20 years, had resulted in the attachment of that vital point in our history. I think we can take great heart from that fact. However, as I say, we have to make tremendous efforts from now on. There are areas which I need not name, because I do not want to go into details, where we still have a great deal to do. We have a tremendous lot to do in the direction visualized by the motion before the House to-day.

To pass on from that, and before I come to a suggestion which I want to make to the hon. the Minister, I want to comment briefly on one or two points that have been raised during the course of this debate. The hon. member for Christiana gave us some very interesting opinions — shrewd opinions — in regard to the credit position. I listened to the hon. member with the greatest of interest. Of course, a great deal of what he has said was absolutely correct, but I do want to say this, that in regard to the credit position we must remember that it is a very tricky problem indeed. We must always bear in mind the dangers of too much credit. There is an example before us which we must never forget. I think hon. members who have studied the history of America will know perfectly well what happened round about the ’30’s in that country. I am sure that most of us in this House have read that powerful book, “The Grapes of Wrath”. We know what happened there. We know how the ownership of the land, as a result of too much credit being granted, uncontrolled credit, caused their land to slip from the control of the farming community into the control of the banks, the trust companies and so forth. This produced a situation in America where they had that dramatic migration from the land, that great trek across America when you will remember, Sir, how they went in search of work towards California. I do not suggest that we are facing that situation or that we are likely to be faced by an exactly similar position in this country. But we do have to bear in mind that the most vital consideration is to keep the farmers on the land; to keep as many farmers as possible on the land; and, if possible, to get more people on the land and not less. And when you are dealing with the credit position, a red light shines, because it is something that is very, very tricky. The answer does not lie in the granting of more credit. That is not the answer to the problem with which we are concerned to-day. There must, of course, be liberal credit facilities for farmers in all emergency and who are honestly struggling to remain on the land and so on.

Short-term credit.

Yes, short-term credit. There must be that. But the long term credit position must always be watched with the greatest possible interest and concern.

Mr. Speaker, what is the solution to the problem with which we are concerned to-day? The solution, I submit, lies in three directions. First of all, not in credit but in the farmer obtaining a reasonable and assured income. I think everybody will agree with that. He should get a reasonable and assured income which will enable him to put something back into his soil. And there can be no doubt about it that if the farmer is given an assured income his whole instinct will be to put fertility back into the soil. The concept that the farmer is a robber, that he wants to rob his soil, is not borne out by even a superficial look at the position. The average farmer is desperately anxious to build up the fertility of his soil. I hope that any notions that may be held of farmers “land mining”, or farmers recklessly taking the fertility out of the soil will never gain currency in South Africa, because it is entirely contrary to fact. Give the farmer a reasonable income and he will put the fertility back into the soil.

The second problem is that of education. That is a vitally important aspect and I will say something further about it presently. Finally, of course, there is this vital question of research. I do not want to say very much about that because a lot has already been said. I agree with the constructive suggestions that have been put forward to-day in regard to research.

Sir, I am not going to be long. I did not want to say too much in this debate, but I do want to conclude by putting to the hon. the Minister a suggestion that falls under the heading of education. I know that very powerful and influential representations have been made to the Government that one of the major themes of the republican celebrations which are going to take place in 1962 should be an appeal to the nation to dedicate itself to the preservation and improvement of the soil. I cannot think of a finer theme for an occasion such as that, because without a sound and healthy soil our country, must ultimately be doomed. In concluding what I have to say I would like to join my plea with those who are making this appeal to the Government, and to ask the hon. the Minister to lend his very powerful support to the representations that have been made, so that we can have as one of the major themes a subject in which most of us can join without any differences and wholeheartedly; this theme of the preservation of the soil of South Africa. I think that would be a very fine theme indeed for the republican celebrations, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will give this idea his fullest support.

I am gratified by the nice spirit revealed by the last speaker and I would like to congratulate him on his speech. He has always been the friend of the farmer in this respect. It is not the first time that he has participated in a debate of this kind, and he has always been constructive, in an attempt to be of assistance in regard to these problems we have in this country. Therefore I want to thank him specially for the good spirit in which he spoke. Let us please completely forget the political aspect in connection with this matter. I am sorry that the hon. member, in my opinion, did the wrong thing by supporting the amendment, but I will leave it at that.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to point out that in regard to these matters a great man took the lead. He was somebody whom we regarded as a child of nature, and one who loved our soil and our flora. It was none other than the late General Smuts, who at that time already had taken the lead. Let us therefore, in connection with this matter, forget about politics completely and be constructive, because there is no doubt that we are dealing here with the greatest danger to South Africa, a danger even greater than that of Communism. It is the danger that we are turning our country into a desert. The desert is steadily encroaching. We have spent large sums of money on industries, and the farmers have contributed to their prosperity and to that of the Railways, etc. Because we know that those things are essential for our country. I now want to make an appeal to our friends in the cities also to assist the farmers and to render assistance in this great task resting upon us. There is no doubt that the farmers are slowly but surely nearing a crisis. Money has to be spent to put our agriculture on a sound basis in this respect, so that we will be able to feed our population, which is essential to industry. There can be no doubt about that. There is no doubt that our friends in the cities will have to see to it that the farmers are kept on the land. We have seen the report about the depopulation of the platteland. What is really the cause of it? It is our present economic system. The farmer just cannot produce at the prices he receives to-day. Just take mealies. Twelve years ago the price was 21s. 6d., and to-day it is 28s. 6d., an increase of 40 per cent., but everything required by the farmer has gone up in price. The index now stands at 200. I am glad that my hon. friend put the credit side of the matter. It is true, and we are grateful for the assistance we have received, but that was temporary assistance only. The capital burdens of the farmer are becoming increasingly greater and his income increasingly less, and as sure as I stand here, if a stop is not put to it, we will see a catastrophe amongst the farmers, the people who have to produce the food, such as we have never seen before.

I just want to give a brief sketch of the terrible conditions in the country. We have the north-west and other areas which are drying up, and where people who three years ago were prosperous are poor Whites to-day. It is not their fault. I know those areas and I know what good farmers they are, and I know that they work hard to produce a little fodder for their animals. But when conditions like that arise, nothing can be done about it. I was the adviser to the Minister of Finance from 1934 to 1936. These catastrophes have struck those areas before, and at that time we assisted the farmers and achieved great success, but we have to add something more. It is true that soil conservation assisted greatly with the result that farmers did not go under completely, but that is not enough. It can only be done by assisting them to restore their subterranean water. I just want to mention one example. There are some of our large rivers which to-day are nothing more than drainage canals. In Natal the whole of the northern area is being drained and from Mont aux Sources right down to the sea, a distance of 1,200 miles, it is just a canal and only 4 per cent of the water is being used, whereas the people in the interior and their animals die of thirst. There are people who no longer have water on their farms. Yes, people may laugh at these matters, but the position is so serious that I cannot laugh. I therefore ask that in those cases the cattle farmer should be assisted. They want two things. They want soil conservation, and in fact they receive assistance from the Government, but three-quarters of these people pay for the erosion works out of their own pockets and we should be very grateful to them for doing so. We say we are very grateful for what the Government has done. We are very grateful, e.g. for Vlekpoort, because the area in which there is most erosion is the Karoo. Unfortunately that was caused by the sheep. In the whole of the Southern Hemisphere the economy is based on the sheep. Take Australia, South America and South Africa. It is not based on gold. In 100 years we have destroyed what nature built up over thousands of years. Where in fact we have these experiments, for which we are all grateful, as at Vlekpoort, we must assist people to suit themselves to conditions to a greater extent, because the income does not allow them to use their own money for it. We do not always want to ask the Government for assistance, but these people do not receive enough money on which to live, educate their children and build up their farms. The people in the cities must assist us. We are grateful to them for supplying us with markets. We cannot do without them, but they cannot do without us either. But if one sees what is happening in the North-west and other areas, South Africa will be a desert within 50 years. I remember that when I was younger one could locate water at 50 feet, but within 20 years that water table has sunk to 300 feet. How can that be remedied? The erosion works have assisted to a large extent. I want to ask the Minister to speed up that work. We still have too few opportunities for speeding it up. We would like to assist, but we would like to have more technical men so that we can know sooner what the position is. But I say that if the Government allows the water of our country to run into the sea, then I predict that within 50 years large areas of the country will be a desert. We need only see what happened in North Africa. What was once a land of milk and honey is to-day a desert, and we are busy to-day, through our system of farming and through the prevailing circumstances, impoverishing the farmers and compelling them to rob the soil. We ask the Government for assistance. The cattle farmer particularly should be given a little water and the opportunity to obtain fodder, and then he will not ask for assistance. For two years already the position in the North-west has been that no lucerne could be obtained. It is said that if more lucerne is grown there will not be a market for it in South Africa. I would rather have more lucerne than to see my sheep dying of hunger. Nor is it the truth. There is a great market for lucerne in the Mediterranean countries. Our lucerne has the highest protein content in the world and we can obtain export markets. We have 11,000,000 cattle. Of that 6,000,000 belong to the White people and 5,000,000 to the Black people. We have 14,000,000 people in the country. Unless the farmer is allowed to make a proper living, he cannot raise those cattle. There is the profit motive and unless one can make a profit one cannot attend to one’s cattle properly or improve the soil or make improvements. Give the farmer a decent living. I am sure the people in the cities would also like to see that we feed them properly, but then they should also do something from their side. The position in which the farmers find themselves is not rosy at all. The Government has done its best, but I think it is time for us to say in this House that the present position cannot continue, and we ask the whole House, not as a political body but as a national body, to look after the man who has to produce the food. In time of war it is the country which has food which can hold out. Without food one must lose. We extend our best wishes to our industrial development, because we cannot do without industry; they constitute our market, but we cannot continue to produce below the cost of production. We must have something more. In view of these seasons we have, where the risk factor is so great, it becomes absolutely essential that the risk factor should be brought into operation so that the farmer can stand a bad year. There is a market for our meat overseas. If the farmer is encouraged to produce good quality meat, he will have a market overseas. We have the cheapest meat in the world except Brazil. In order to encourage them to produce that meat, the Government should ensure that the platteland does not become depopulated. Years ago 50 per cent of our people lived on the platteland. It is true that industrial development drew many of them away from the platteland, because economic conditions were so bad that many people were forced to go to the cities. Therefore it is high time that we should all look to the food of our people, and not allow the farmers to go under as the result of low prices. Let us help the farmer to produce enough food. There are people who do not realize what conditions are, but we who live amongst those people know that things are not going so well with the farmer, due to low prices and other conditions. They must be given water and better prices and then we will have a happy farming community instead of the depopulation of the platteland. People talk about America, but they do not know what they are talking about, because conditions there are totally different from those here. But five years ago they spent more on water in America than on the war, because it is essential to be able to feed their people in time of war. The Americans say: “Water brings water”. The water is dammed up, the subterranean sources are replenished and the evaporation brings more water. Let us dam up the water which now runs away. Australia pumps water 300 miles over the mountains into the desert. Those things can be done, and we know the Minister is busy with them and that investigations have been made, but I want to ask the Minister please to give those people some courage again, and to give them those facilities I have asked for.

Mr. Speaker, I know that a number of hon. members want to speak this afternoon, and therefore I shall cut myself as short as possible. Let me say this, that unless science is called in, the depletion of our soils to-day must end in disaster. In thirty years I have seen how our soils have deteriorated in fertile areas, like the Caledon-Bredasdorp-Swellendam area. If that continues we will not be able to feed our present population, much less what we expect to have at the turn of the century. But scientific help can only follow on research. Years ago I realized that we could not continue in the area where I farm—and I am speaking for the South-Western Districts—growing only cash crops, unless we were going to face the complete depletion of our soils. Try as I could, and I spent a lot of money, I could find no solution. No amount of artificial fertilizer can give heart to soil, which must have organic matter and humus. Some 40 years ago I went to one of the Government research stations and saw dry land lucerne on a small plot, but no one had attempted to do it on a big or commercial scale. Some 36 years ago, after spending literally thousands of pounds trying to find something which would grow on our dry summer soils in the winter rainfall area to keep that soil covered from the sun and the wind or replace organic matter and after having tried everything, my farm manager, the late Dirk van Zyl, suggested that we try dry land lucerne. I pointed out to him how impossible it was, because our soil was shallow and the subsoil was clay and “naklip that lucerne stops growing from May onwards when the cold weather comes and only if it has moisture; which we don’t have in Summer, but nevertheless he persuaded me we prepared the ground carefully, fertilized heavily and sowed lucerne on dry land. The result is know: it changed the whole economy of the South-Western districts. I take no credit for it because it was my manager who made the suggestion. We did not know it then, but Prof. Sim of Stellenbosch has pointed out since, that the south wind from the sea which is full of moisture resulted in a sort of osmosis in reverse taking place. As hon. members know, the plant takes up moisture through its roots by osmosis right up to the leaves, but in this case it is just the reverse. This wind comes up from the sea and the moist air which it carries is taken up by the leaves and it goes down to the roots; and lucerne is a success there. To the lack of that wind in the Swart-land is the reason possibly why dryland lucerne is not a success there. I mention this to show that by experiments one sometimes finds the answer to problems. The Government then subsidised lucerne seed to the extent of 50 per cent and the whole of the economy changed, and we went in for mixed farming to an extent which we had never done before. But lucerne is not enough, because it has a long taproot; (if it gets “naklip” it will go down 12 feet or more), but it has not got a big root surface or mass and because of that it does not put the humus and organic matter back into the soil, which is essential. It increases fertility by the fixation of nitrogen from the air in the soil through the nodules on the root, but it does not improve the structure of the soil; and until the structure is maintained by putting back the organic matter, nothing will help to rehabilitate the soil. Therefore the only other thing is to plant grasses and clovers. We find that subterranean clover plus H¹ Rye grass is quite effective; but they are annuals and, in my opinion, an annual does not create that root surface which gives the organic matter and the humus which is necessary. If that was not so, growing our annual crops would be sufficient to provide the humus and organic matter. Therefore we have to find some perennial that will grow; and that is the point I want to come to. I have tried every type of grass over the last 50 years, including all these exotic grasses we get from Pretoria; and from the summer rainfall areas; but they do not do well with us, except one, which is a grass that will keep on growing and increasing its root surface, and at the same time spread itself by casting seed; and that is Phalarus Tuberosa. But unfortunately it is not good grazing, because it is not palatable to the animals due to the lack of cobalt. Without cobalt deficiency diseases are caused; and no doubt the animals know that instinctively, and do not eat it. The seed is expensive, costing up to 14s. a lb. though it can be cheaper now. Some years ago I tried sowing a small amount of Phalarus Tuberosa (2 lbs. to the morgen), with the lucerne and the other leys we were putting down. By the time the lucerne had to be ploughed out (after five to eight years) the Phalarus Tuberosa had spread itself over the land. It gave big tufts with a heavy root area, and when ploughed in, puts the heart back into the soil and prevents erosion and the soil returns almost to what it was originally.

My point in rising to-day is this. The ordinary farmer who is farming on a tight budget cannot afford to put an expensive grass like Phalarus Tuberosa in if he is going to get no immediate return. He will only get an indirect return over a long period. Therefore I suggest that the Government should subsidise this seed to the farmer, and suggest that he plants it with the lucerne or grass leys to rehabilitate the earth so that in ten or 12 years that soil will be completely rehabilitated. I suggest that research be first done, and if it is found successful—I have had the experts down and they think I am right—the Government could subsidise the seed. Well, that is my observation, but of course we farmers often make observations which are correct but our deductions are wrong. I remember when I came back from overseas with an agricultural degree I was told that if you let the horses out on to the grass when the dew was still on it they got horse sickness. I said it was utter rubbish because dew was practically distilled water. But the fact was that when the dew was on the grass the worm or microbe swam up the grass and was eaten by the animal; but when the grass got dry, it dropped off and was not eaten. So the observation of the farmers was correct, but their deductions were wrong. I merely mention that to show that both my observations and deductions over a large number of years with Phalarus might not be correct; but I hope experiments will be made.

I do not want to waste time going over what the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) put over so ably about Seredella, but to my mind that is one of the most important developments that has come to the South-Western Districts in the last 20 years. Soils which were absolutely useless and could not carry one sheep to ten morgen; that cold mountain sour soil probably Ph. 5, where the proteas grow, will still grow Seredella 2½ feet high; and I have literally cut tens of thousands of bales of the finest hay which carries me through the dry period. I think much more research should be put into that. It is a cheap seed and its only disadvantage is that it germinates very quickly if the rains come too soon, and is not a legume that maintains itself, but it can be sown each year and make fertile quite useless soils.

There is one last point. If only we could develop some of our own natural grasses. The finest grass we have in the South-Western Districts is the “rooi platgras”, and that has been destroyed by over-stocking and ploughing. I have tried every means of germinating the seeds, but nothing came of it. Again Professor Sim came down—we are extremely grateful to these very able men—and told me that wherever you disturb the soil “rooi platgras” would never grow again, and even if the soil is merely fertilized the grass dies out, or will not propagate itself. Even the mere handling of the seed breaks off the germ and it will not germinate so the seed cannot be harvested. He said the only means was to cut bundles of grass and throw it on the virgin land, and then it starts growing because there is sufficient covering to keep in the moisture for the small seeds as the sheaf of grass rots. But then that camp has to be closed for years until the grass slowly spreads. I have areas where there was only a stool every 10 or 15 yards, but after closing that camp to grazing for seven years the whole area came back to grass. I am sure that research could find out some other means of rehabilitating the grass in that way, and I would like to suggest that research be done.

Just one last word to the hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Keyter), who said that so much superphosphate was lost in the soil and that only a small portion was taken up by the plant. Well, that is quite true. I have come to the conclusion that when superphosphate is spread, the amount taken up by the crop is very small. Most of it quickly reverts to an insoluble phosphate. I think potclay has something to do with it, with the result that most of it becomes insoluble and is lost. You will remember how superphosphate was discovered. A certain Mr. Law, I think it was, at Rothemstead Agricultural School in England, some 1½ centuries ago, found that plants were devoid of phosphate though they were growing in phosphatic soil. He said that something must be wrong and that the plants must be unable to take up the phosphates. He then put H₂SO₄ (sulphuric acid) on to ordinary rock phosphate and made its water soluble. Thus superphosphate was discovered. There must be some means by which research could find out how we could get back those large quantities of superphosphates put into the soil which has reverted into some insoluble form and which therefore cannot be taken up by the plant. It lies there quite useless and represents a great waste of money. Some means should be found to make it soluble again so that it can be used by the plant.

I would like to commence by congratulating the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) and to thank him for the efficient manner in which he introduced this motion this morning, thereby making it possible for us to discuss objectively a subject of the utmost importance, which we did on both sides of the House. The mere fact that preference was given to his motion should, I think, be seen also in the light of how important the Government regards this matter of the preservation of soil fertility in the country. The suggestions made and the ideas expressed here, and perhaps also the little bit of criticism which was voiced, I found most enlightening, and I want to say here that I take it all in the spirit in which it was meant, viz. a constructive and not a destructive spirit as some people might perhaps think. Where somebody perhaps here and there succumbed to the temptation to criticize the Minister or the Government in order to obtain a little advantage for his party—although it did not really take place on a scale worth worrying about—I do not intend reacting to it. I just want to say that I completely agree with the hon. member for Christiana and also with Dr. Bennett, who in the early 40’s was invited to visit South Africa by the then Government to come and investigate conditions, not only in regard to the impoverishment but the erosion and the destruction of our soil, and then to frame a report. I think that what is said was so true that you will forgive me if I quote his words again, as stated in the quotation read by the hon. member for Christiana. He said—

That is the crux of his standpoint—

Not only in the agricultural industry but generally—

Mr. Speaker, the soil is the most valuable possession of any nation in the world, and we cannot and should never dare to regard it as being the possession of those who have made it their profession to utilize that soil, i.e. those who have obtained property rights over it, viz. the farmers of the country. The soil of the country does not belong to the farmers only, but to the whole of the population. The farmers in any country and also in South Africa are merely privileged in the sense that they have been delegated by the people—because originally all the land belonged to the State—to become the trustees of the people over that most important and most valuable national possession, and therefore the old adage that farmers are not made but born is so true. That is a very significant statement because any farmer—and I am very proud to be able to say that I am also one (although perhaps a bad one), but I am proud of belonging to that group, the farmers—and any farmer whose main object in life it is and whose ideal it is to follow that calling in the spirit and with the idea of enriching himself and his family must necessarily be a bad farmer, who cannot carry his full weight and comply with the proper requirements of a good farmer in the fullest sense of the word. Farmers cannot practise that profession unless it goes hand in hand with making a decent living on the land. Just like any other person, the farmer cannot practise his profession if the profits obtained from his operations are too small to enable him to live a decent life. It is only natural that the profitability, the economic factor, should play a role, but I think the feeling should also be there that he has been called to fulfil a function, not only for himself alone but particularly for future generations; and because it is regarded in that light not only by the Government in South Africa but also by other governments in other parts of the world, it is a fact that the prosperity of any country can to a large extent be measured by the success and prosperity of its farmers, and for that reason also governments in other countries of the world devote particular attention to the prosperity of their farmers and the protection and the assistance they have to give them from time to time. We are dealing here with a very important subject, viz. the preservation and the improvement of the fertility of our soil. In order to give a brief background sketch of what we are faced with in South Africa, to complement that which other hon. members who participated in the debate have already given, I merely say this: It is well known that South Africa is particularly poor in useful agricultural land. Approximately only 10 per cent of our total area is suitable for cultivation, i.e. approximately 10,200,000 morgen of land is suitable for dry land cultivation, for the growing of crops; the rest of our country— many parts of it are practically unsuitable for animals also—for grazing purposes, but most of it is used for cattle raising and grazing. Thus far we have in South Africa, it is estimated, approximately 670,000 morgen under irrigation, and it is doubtful whether we will be able to double that area under irrigation, even though we were to make proper use of all the water we have available in South Africa. I think that to accept that we can increase it to approximately twice as much is a reasonable realistic picture, although perhaps a little on the optimistic side; in other words, if we take that into account and consider our population as it is to-day and how it is composed, and if we take into consideration the natural population increase and also how many people there are overseas who will still come to regard South Africa as an attractive land in which to come and settle permanently, then we realize that we are compelled by circumstances, in the interest of our people and in the interest of our future population, to devote the most serious attention to the preservation of our soil fertility and the best possible use of that soil which is available.

Now, what does one really understand by soil fertility? Without expanding on it I want to mention a few matters. There are many factors determining the fertility of the soil. Amongst others, there are the physical qualities such as the depth of the soil, its structure, whether it is sandy, loam or clay, the chemical qualities, i.e. the plant food elements which it contains, etc. Then there is the question of whether it is sweet, brakish or sour. The capacity of the soil for absorbing water and also its capacity for retaining water are both factors which play a great role in determining the fertility of the soil. There are also biological activities, i.e. whether the soil is rich in foodstuffs, humus, healthy micro-biological life, because soil is not a dead thing; it is alive; it changes; it reacts to treatment. And the fifth is the presence or absence of harmful weeds like bulbous plants, cockleburr, etc.

Now the question arises: What factors contribute to the deterioration of soil fertility? I think one of the main factors contributing towards it is not only the method applied but the mere fact that that soil is being used. That is applicable to all types of soil, whether it is used for grazing alone or not, but as soon as one starts using it, as soon as one puts animals on it, one should realize that one is disturbing nature to some extent, because the animals one puts on it are just like human beings. If there is any choice, one first selects the best spots, and therefore it is easy to fall into sin: the trouble is to avoid sin. That is the position in regard to human beings, and the same applies to animals. It is not merely a question of how many animals one keeps on the land, but it is also a question of how one regulates that grazing, whether one regulates it systematically and judiciously, whether one over-stocks the land, whether one simply allows all the good plants to be grazed off and trodden away so that later only the bad ones remain and one’s animals are eventually forced to live on the remaining plants which have the least nutritional value. These are natural factors which arise when one begins to utilize the soil.

Then one comes to arable land. As soon as one starts ploughing, and the more one ploughs and cultivates, and particularly when one plants row crops which one cultivates and keeps clean, one exposes to the sun and to the elements large areas of the soil. The effect of rain on bare soil and on protected soil is very interesting to note, and it is being noted by research which is being done not only in other countries of the world but also in South Africa. These are factors with which one immediately comes into contact without intending to destroy the fertility of the soil, but which one experiences when one starts to apply the process of protection and conservation which as a farmer one is called upon to do; then one is faced with these practical difficulties.

Then there are two types of processes by which soil deteriorates. Soil is not only eroded or carried away by washaways when there are visible sluits, but one e.g. finds surface erosion caused by wind. We call that wind erosion, and it is considered that surface erosion in the long run causes the loss of the most fertile topsoil. Hundreds of millions of tons of topsoil is washed or blown away every year, and the value of this loss of soil cannot be expressed in terms of money. If one should try to replace these plant foodstuffs which are destroyed in this way by wind erosion by means of applying fertilizers, it would amount to millions of pounds annually. Mr. Speaker, I have mentioned a few factors. There is one other important factor militating against soil fertility, and that is the system of soil exploitation applied in certain areas. I may just add that there is exploitation of the soil on large properties as well as on small farms, because it is simply due to a lack of a planned system of agriculture, a scientific system; and when we ask what machinery there is and what we have done to minimize this destruction of our soil, this reduction in our soil fertility, we think in the first place of the State machinery we established under the Soil Conservation Act. Many people regard the Soil Conservation Act simply as an act which aims at the closing up of dongas which have been washed into the soil or the erection of contour-walls to prevent other dongas being made, or the application of a system of having different camps and a change of grazing, thereby allowing the natural plant growth to give the land the protection there originally was and thereby allowing less water to run away from the soil, so that there is less run-off. But many people do not understand the main function of soil conservation, which is to establish a planned system of farming for every farm unit, a system which suits that farm. Now the question arises: What has the State done in recent years? An amendment has now been moved to the motion moved by the hon. member for Christiana because some people say one should not thank the Government because the Minister might perhaps take credit for it personally; rather move an amendment. I do not think that this was really the true reason for that amendment. I think the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) really wanted more speakers on his side to have the opportunity to participate in the debate.

And on your side too.

If I were to weigh the contributions made here, even though they were all sound, I would rather be inclined to accept the motion of thanks and the good contributions made by the mover of the motion and members on this side.

Mr. Speaker, I just briefly want to mention what the State has done, apart from how the Soil Conservation Act works and how we subsidize farm planning works done in terms of the Soil Conservation Act, whether it consists of groundwork, water works, the storage of water or the erection of fences. Those are all works subsidized by the Government. The Soil Conservation Act was passed in 1946 and it was mentioned that because of the short period of time left, very little was done to apply the provisions of the Soil Conservation Act before 1948 when this Government came into power. Between 1948 and 1960 more than £4,000,000 has been paid out in the form of subsidies to farmers. It was paid out only to people who applied for it and who constructed these works in terms of the Soil Conservation Act, and if one takes it that on an average they are subsidized to the extent of 30 per cent in respect of the works undertaken, it means that the farmers themselves over the past 12 years spent no less than £8,000,000 out of their own pockets—altogether £12,000,000—but what about the millions of pounds spent by farmers who did not apply for a subsidy from the Government? Whilst I am on this point I want to express my thanks to all farmers, particularly to the cattle farmers, who took the lead in tackling soil conservation works without any subsidy from the State, when their position and their income was such that they could afford to do so out of their own pockets. In order to make this Act a success and to get people to realize the necessity for soil conservation, there must be a period of education, guidance, the provision of information. I do not want that to be lost sight of. It was the duty of the State to do that work and an organization had to be established for that. That organization was established. The question was posed here whether the money we have hitherto spent on soil conservation in all its forms has achieved the results; whether we have achieved anything by it. I must say that I was a little surprised to hear that people could even at this late stage still ask whether the money was spent advantageously and whether we had achieved anything. The hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) commenced by saying how the soil had deteriorated, how the coastal areas had deteriorated, but not long afterwards he told us how many more animals he can now keep. I want to state that particularly over the past 10 to 12 years tremendous progress has been made and much has been achieved through the active steps taken by the Government in conjunction with the farmers, and with the co-operation of the general public of South Africa which is very sympathetic towards soil conservation. Not only has tremendous progress been made, but splendid results have been achieved. I can mention examples here of where the carrying capacity of various farms in various parts of the country, not only in one area where the rainfall was favourable but even in the north-western Cape, was doubled on well-planned farms where farm planning was implemented. Not only was the carrying capacity doubled, but also the production per animal. On those farms the production of sheep and wool was doubled, and in the recent drought those people suffered fewer losses than other farmers who had not done so yet. But Rome was not built in a day, and therefore one has to be very careful not to judge too hastily. Since Union the Department of Agriculture has done a tremendous amount of work in the sphere of research. But when I come to research I want to have a broader vision and consider the application and the utilization of the most scientific and technological measures which in these modern times have become available to us and to the farmers. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the memory of somebody whom we cannot lightly forget when talking about research and the proper utilization of the technical manpower and the services made available to South Africa by the Department of Agriculture. I think of our deceased friend who was the champion of the idea that science should become an integral part of the planning of the system of farming in South Africa. I am thinking of the former Secretary for Agriculture, who was later Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing, namely Dr. M. S. du Toit. I was glad to hear the words of appreciation expressed in regard to the officials of the Department, our research workers and our technical staff, without whose assistance we could not have done these things. I may just say that it was Dr. du Toit who was responsible for the reorganization of the whole of the Department of Agriculture and who established the basis on which our agricultural technical services still stand to-day. Research was always being done, but it was never co-ordinated or properly organized. Dr. du Toit divided the country up into six ecological areas. For a long time already—and I say this particularly to hon. members who are interested in the eastern Cape—it has been urged that the eastern Cape, which has a tremendous potential, should enjoy more attention, and it is a pleasure to me to announce here to-day that, with the approval of the Cabinet, I have decided to separate the eastern Cape from the existing Karoo Regional Organization. It will now function as a separate area, with a Regional Director and two Asistant Directors at the head of affairs. As the result of this step the technical services for the eastern Cape will be extended and that area will be given more effective services.

Where will the headquarters be?

That still has to be decided. In the sphere of research, my Department is making experiments in regard to fertilizers. The impression was created here this afternoon that we were doing too little in that regard. We do a tremendous amount of work in regard to fertilizer experiments at our central research stations, as well as on our experimental farms, and co-operative experiments we carry out everywhere in co-operation with the farmers. It should be remembered, Sir, that fertilizer experiments are also accompanied by soil surveys, and we do a tremendous amount of work in regard to soil surveying. It was of course practically just impossible, in view of the shortage of manpower, to make a soil survey of the whole of the Union, but we have made tremendous progress. I may, for example, say that we even appointed an expert from abroad on a contract basis in the service of the Department, and he and others are now busy making an intensive soil survey of the whole of the Tugela area in Natal. Then if soil surveys have to be made by the Lands Department for the purposes of establishing settlements or for other reasons, use is also made of my Department, and sometimes it becomes a little difficult where preference has to be given to surveys which are urgently required, with the result that some of the other surveys perhaps have to be delayed.

Fertilizer experiments are being carried out. Our difficulty is that one cannot e.g. prohibit the fertilizer companies from paying these people more and enticing away the extension officers who were in our service by offering higher salaries. They probably consider that these people have already gained some experience in the Department and then they use them as selling agents, to go around the country and to give advice. But our farmers do not have to accept that advice without more ado. If a man wants to do so, he can do so. It is not that those people have no agricultural knowledge, but their motives and objects are not necessarily the same as those of the Department. Our officials only aim at giving the farmer the best possible advice, but the others still have the sales motive at the back of their minds. They also do good work, but I just want to say that the fertilizer companies have now formed an association and they have also promised their co-operation. There ought to be co-operation between them and the Department, and there will now be better co-operation. I hope that will be one of the methods by which the advice they give to the farmers will be better coordinated with the advice we give them. We do not only do research in regard to fertilizers, but also in connection with the effect of trace elements. I want to ask the hon. member for Sea Point to go to Stellenbosch.

I was there.

Perhaps it was long ago, or else he did not spend enough time there, judging from his speech. But there he can see what is being done in this sphere, and also in other spheres. Now somebody has said that we should give economic guidance to our farmers also in connection with drop rotation experiments. In other words, when we have evolved a crop rotation scheme we should be able to reply to the question put by the farmer: “Will it pay me?” Now I must say that we have not got the units available to be able to do it for every farm and in every case. Our aim is to establish such units in various places in the various areas of the country and there to establish experimental farming units, economic units dealing with various systems of crop rotation, and then we want to prove to the farmer that our system will ensure that he receives a greater income than he would otherwise have had.

Where have you got them?

We have one e.g. at Potchefstroom. We have one at Brits, not far from Pretoria. There we have such a unit. But now I just want to come to what was said by the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk), viz. that she was convinced that the Department has enough material available but that it does not reach the farmers. I want to put it another way. The Department realizes that you can do all the research in the world, but if you cannot inform the farmers of results it is no use. If one cannot bring them that knowledge and then still try to see that it is applied, that research is not of much value. If you take all our publications, all our periodicals, the broadcasts over the radio, the farmers’ days, farmers’ days at experimental farms, demonstrations on farms and at our agricultural colleges and at our agricultural schools, and if one sees what the attendance is on those occasions, I must say that there is still something wrong. As someone said, one can lead a horse to water, but one cannot force him to drink if he does not want to. I would like hon. members to help us there. We must impress it on our farmers that where it takes place in their vicinity, where there is an experimental station near to them, even though the type of soil is somewhat different, they should still be interested in it. Take the case of George. How many Oudtshoorn farmers have attended there? And how much benefit can they derive from it! That is the experience. I went to Brits, and there the position is the same. The data are available, but the people simply do not read it sufficiently and do not make use of all the facilities. The older farmers in many instances have perhaps got into a rut and have the idea that an expert or an extension officer, because he has been to a university, can only talk out of the book and not from a practical point of view. I know there are farmers who say: “Why should I take notice of him, because he cannot even inspan an ox or saddle a horse?” and because the man cannot do that practical thing he thinks: “Now what can this man teach me?” We still find that mentality on the part of many of our farmers and we must break down that prejudice. Otherwise we will not achieve the desired results in the actual application of that knowledge available to us and its application by the farmers. To do that we need the help of everybody.

I am now busy improving the whole of the land service movement in the Department of Agriculture, i.e. a land service movement for our youth—not the youth of one section of the population only, but of the whole of the White population. Because if we have failed to make the older generation realize that it is our national asset and that every individual should take an interest in the soil, in the beauty of its flora and its preservation and protection, then I think we should in any case concentrate on the youth. I want to appeal to hon. members on both sides of the House to assist us in this respect, seeing that we have had reasonable success in that regard. I attach so much importance to it that I am now sending the regional director of the land service movement overseas to attend an international land service conference. Now I hope that hon. members, in addressing the public, will bear it in mind and that with the influence and status they have in the eyes of the public they will not only play off the one party against the other, but use their position for this positive objective in the interests of agriculture and of the country. Without your help the Minister and the Department, with the best will in the world, cannot achieve the success we otherwise could have achieved.

I want to conclude. Of course there is much scope for further research. I have not mentioned all the projects we have. At the moment we have 289 different research projects in operation, all in connection with some aspect of soil fertility, and it is being done by no fewer than 300 research workers. I referred a moment ago to education and guidance. We have made much progress. We have four agricultural faculties at four universities. We have our agricultural colleges. We have a large extension service which we are now making more efficient. I want to add that I have now obtained Cabinet approval for an extension of the personnel of my Department of Agricultural Technical Services because it is absolutely necessary to know what staff will be available in future. That is necessary for orderly planning, because research is a long-term project. One must have an idea of how much one can spend. I may mention that it has now been approved that I will be given £175,000 extra for this year, and in the course of ten years I will receive £1,000,000 more from the Exchequer for increasing the personnel of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services.

The hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) and also other hon. members mentioned how essential it was that we should give guidance in respect of agricultural engineering and mechanization. I have already said that I have not progressed as fast as I had expected to do, but a tremendous amount of capital is concerned here, and I have succeeded at least in obtaining approval now to establish in my Department of Agricultural Technical Services a national division of agricultural mechanization and engineering, and two posts have been approved, viz. a director and a deputy director. The main function of this division will be, apart from the necessary co-ordination in the sphere of agricultural mechanization and engineering in the Department, also to evolve comprehensive plans in co-operation with the C.S.I.R. and the S.A. Bureau of Standards as to how research in connection with agricultural mechanization and engineering and the testing of farm machinery and implements can be organized and carried out in the most efficient way. When these people have drawn up their plans and made their suggestions, the Government will then devote attention to the implementation of those plans. [Time limit.]

I think the subject we have discussed here to-day is of such importance that we will not be able to conclude our discussions this afternoon, and therefore I move—

That the debate be now adjourned.

I second.

Agreed to; debate adjourned until 10 February.