Transactions of RHASS Volume 1940 - Page 035
Image details
| Year | 1940 |
|---|---|
| Transcription |
|
| OCR Text |
The Substance below. Soft Soap. May be Combined with. Nicotine Sulphate. Miseible Oils. Dorris Powder. Should not be Combined with. Oil Emulsions. Pyrethrum Extract. Lead Arsenate. Lime Sulphur. \Ve ttable Sulphur. Bordeaux Mixture. Oil Emulsions. Miscible Oils. Nicotine Sulphate. Pyrethrum Extract. Bordeaux Mixture. Soft Soap. Nicotine Sulphate. Pyrethrum Extract. Bordeaux Mixture. Soft Soap. Derris Powder. Lime Sulphur. \Vettablo Sulphur. Derris Powder. Lead Arsenate. V ettable Sulphur. Lime Sulphur. Nicotine Sulphate. May be mixed with any other spray material if added immediately before spraying. Derris Powder. \Vcttable Sulphur. Soft Soap. Nicotine Sulphate. Oil Emulsions. Lead Arsenate. Lime Sulphur. Bordeaux Mixture. Pyrethrum Extract. Oil Emulsions. Miscible Oils. Nicotine Sulphate. Soft Soap. Limo Sulphur. Bordeaux Mixture. Lead Arsenate. Nicotine Sulphate. \Vcttable Sulphur. Lime Sulphur. Bordeaux Mixture. Soft Soap. Misciblc Oils. Any preparation containing Cresylic Acid. \Vettable Sulphur. Nicotine Sulphate. Derris Powder. Lead Arsonate. Bordeaux Mixture. Soft Soap. Oil Emulsions. Miscible Oils. Lime Sulphur. Nicotine Sulphate. Lead Arsenate. Soft Soap. Oil Emulsions. Miscible Oils. Derris Powder. Bordeaux Mixture. Bordeaux Mixture. Oil Emulsions. Miscible Oils. Nicotine Sulphate. Lead Arsenate. VVettable. Sulphur. Soft Soap. Lime Sulphur. Derris Powder. SHORT-TERM AGRICUL’l‘ URAL CREDIT. 1y D. WITNEY, B.Com., Advisory Economist, Edinburgh and East of Scotland College of Agriculture. ’i‘nn problem of short-term (or production) agricultural credit is no new one, and, apparently, is still regarded in various quarters as far from solution, notwithstanding several attempts on the part of our legislature to cope with the problem in recent years. Recognising this inadequacy of our existing credit facilities to finance the farmer’s day-to-day production ol‘ saleable crops, livestock and livestock produce, and smooth their flow to market, Parliament has already made two abortive attempts to supplement them. “Following the lieport of the Committee 011 Agricultural Credit, 1923, the Agricultural Credits Act, 1923, was passed, and under Part II. (.r this Act the attempt was made to galvanise into life an organisation of co-opcrative credit societies which were, in essence, nothing more nor less than Raiffciscn Banks, in which the Government provided half the capital. . . . The Act of 1923 failed because it introduced an organisation entirely new to the farmer.” 1 Following a further inquiry, and the publication of another report 2’ by the. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Part II. of the Agricultural Credits Art of 1928 (and a year later of a similar Act relating to Scotland) tried another way out of the impasse: it sought to enable the farmer to supplement his credit facilities by the creation of an agricultural charge in favour of a bank— 2'.c., a chattel mortgage secured on all his farm assets; it failed, largely because it caused the farmer’s other sources of credit, notably through his merchants, to dry up. The complete failure of these legislative attempts threw the farmer back on his traditional sources of short-term credit when in need of temporary accommodation—the joint-stock banks, the merchants, and the livestock auctioneers. And it emphatically demonstrates—if such demonstration were necessary—that the difficulty involved in financing agricultural production is due to two basic characteristics of the organisa- tion of the agricultural industry, which distinguish it from other industries—first, the absence of joint-stock capitalisation which compels the farmer to rely upon his own financial resources and those of his near relatives , and secondly, the l ‘ Financing the Farmer,’ p. 10, by C. S. Orwin. Pub’d. O.U.P., 1933. 2 ‘ Report on Agricultural Credit,’ Economic Series No. 8. |
| Title | Transactions of RHASS Volume 1940 - Page 035 |
