Mechanisation Symposium Labour versus Mechanisation: Competition or Co-operation

Agricultural mechanisation, as we know it today, is a relative newcomer to the art and science of profitable farming. It is only since the end of World War I1 that agricultural mechanisation has moved forward to take its place as one of the major factors concerned with profitable agricultural production. This rapid expansion has, together with all the many desirable attributes of mechanisation, resulted in the widespread acceptance of a number of misconceived ideas. As in the early days of artificial fertilizers we had the "muck and magic" principle of economic farming, today we also have the attitude of 'machines not men", with the central pivot of the internal combustion engine. Not surprisingly there are too many known examples where mechanisation has been undertaken in such a manner that it has failed to achieve its loudly stated advantages. In many cases, the so-called labour saving effects of mechanisation have not been realised. Thus, the national statistics of such countries as the United Kingdom show that for a considerable period of time after the introduction of machines to the farm, labour has shown an amazing ability to remain in employment. Furthermore, the cost-cutting advantages of machines have not, in many cases, been achieved and costs have actually risen along with increased output. The reasons for these failures may fairly be attributed to faulty decision making, incorrect problem definition and faulty planning, rather than an inability to achieve the desired results when operations are correctly mechanised. Even today, we have in South Africa voices calling for such mechanical devices as the two-row cane cutter, when no detailed feasibility studies have been carried out. The proven need for modern business management techniques to be applied to sugarcane farming in South Africa suggests that labour and machines must be viewed as two valuable complementary resources. These should be used either singly or jointly, in varying proportions, to obtain the highest level of continuous profit that is considered feasible. It would seem to be an unjustifiable waste of money and available resources to introduce powerdriven machines to the average sugarcane farm before the existing power resources, chiefly labour, are fully and efficiently utilised. Additionally, the . replacement of labour by machine when the former is in abundant supply, merely creates a less flexible production-cost structure. It also substitutes, very frequently in an African context, a high cost production factor for a low one. In many instances it has been the "drift from the land" that has been the main factor forcing farmers to adopt improved methods of production, including mechanisation. The residual workers have demanded higher wages, and so overall labour costs have continued to rise. In the context of economic productivity, labour and machines can be substituted one for the other and mixed freely within their inherent capabilities. In the more sophisticated agricultural industries of the world, combined labour and machinery costs frequently account for more than half the value of total agricultural production. In South Africa the same position prevails, and in labour-intensive enterprises such as sugarcane farming, labour costs alone can amount to as much as 60% of total direct costs.