l;YAI. i-MMMI N AUUICULTfKK. 



2 Stjlrmbtr, 1919.] 



MK. CASTKI.I. WRKV. 





7856. Would you be surprised to har that w.. hail 

 a witntwa from York-Inn- hero this morning who said 

 that the average on lius l.irm. and on taints ..f equal 

 ice in his county, was from -1 to 4J quai s. r , )., , acre!' 

 No, I should not be at all smprixxl i<. hear that. 



7657. Would you be surprised to hoar that ho said 

 that a neighbouring small farm owner has actually 

 threshed 7 quarter* of wheat t<i the .1 V., it is 



quite possible. 



7656. Does that not go a long way to counteract 

 your opinion as to the value to the nation of large 

 farms as compared with small faun.; N.>. n..t at all. 



7659. What is the real object of f arming '1 It de- 

 pends which way you look at it. 



7660. I should like to get it from your point of 

 view as a farmer or as a citizen. What 'is your 

 object in handling the land.- I am here to give 

 evidence, and if you will give mo the question 

 in such a form that I can answer it I will try to do 

 BO. I do not know what you have got at the back 

 of your mind. 



7661. I hare nothing at all at the back of ray 

 mind. What I want to Know is, what is the object of 

 man handling a farm!' More economic production 

 in the handling of a big farm. 



7662. Yes I have given you two instances of greater 

 production on the smaller farms. I have given you 

 an instance of one small farmer producing 7 quarters 

 of wheat to the acre, and you <>n a large farm only 

 produce 3. Still you tell me that a large farm is 

 more economical than a small farm? Did the wit- 

 new from Yorkshire tell you what rent he was paying 

 for his farm? 



7663. No? If you want to draw a comparison he- 

 tween the production on different farms you hove to 

 ascertain what the respective rents are. 



7664. Hent is a secondary thing in my experience 

 nowadays? I am afraid that is not my oxperionco. 



7665. 'Mr. Punrnri: Following up that point, this 

 farm which you have been working and of which you 

 have submitted a plan, was not designed to provide 

 an illustration of the advantages of farming on a 

 large scale, was it? No, certainly not. 



7666. You have simply taken the farm as it stood 

 taking into account the* quality of the land you have 

 dealt with already, and you have shewn tho results 

 of that particular farm with all the disadvantages of 

 the rabbit warren and so on. that you had to surmount 

 at the start? Yes. As I explained my chief took this 

 estate over when it was practically in ruins, and he 

 has been developing it ever since. As soon as he got 

 a portion of the land cleaned he has let it, and where 

 he has not been able to do so he has kept it in hand. 



7667. So that you have been working the least ad- 

 vantageous portion of the land all tho time? Yes. 



7668. Where you have got the land into condition 

 you have let it off to a tenant and thereby reduced 

 the value of tho land that has remained?- x 



76C9. You have practically taken out the eye of 

 your land? Yes, we have practically l>een farming 

 the bad land all the time. 



7670. So that tho comparison on a large holding as 

 compared to a small one in your cose is of no value? _ 

 No. it in of no comparative value at all. 



7671. With regard to vour 1918-19 profit nnd loss 

 account, and your sale of cattle in that year amount- 

 ing to 7,579, was that an ordinarv dispersal sale or 

 a sale just in the ordinary wav of your operations? 



No. it was a pedigree herd which we desired to 

 and we sold it off, .but as a matter of fact I did nell 

 rather more cattle that year than I have done in 

 average vears. 



7672. .Vr. Cnvtlry. As a matter of fact according 

 to my calculation* I find that taking the cattle in 

 tock in 1918 and the cnttle Iwuight and comparing 

 thaw- with the cattle sold in 1DIO and the stock at 

 the end of 1919 you made a profit on cattlo of 



r 



Whereas if yon do the same calculations on 

 your figure* that you have given UK to-day for 1917-18 

 it hen* a profit on capital of only 1.77. It does 

 hew. if the> figure* are accurate, and I think t)u-v 

 are. that a great den! of this profit i due to the 

 poril saVs of cattle in 1f)|in? rndoul.tedly a 

 certain amount of it N due to thnt. I do not think the 

 whole thing in. 



I. You told UH you were tanning the bad lands 

 most of tho time,!' Yes. 



7<<7~>. What rent did you let the lands at tha: 

 had cleaned and let t<> tenants which an- the licit, T 

 landsy I should not like to answer that qucMi<>n 

 without referring. I cannot t<-ll you exactly Irom 

 memory, but I should think from L6s. to 18. 



\Vlwt is the rent yui charge for tin- in- 

 lands you have in hand:- 1 think it U UN. :,d. You 

 can arrive at it if you will work it out. 



7(i77. You did get a higher rent for tho lands you 

 let off.* Ye. 



7078. Have you considered since the lost time we 

 met whether it is possible to fix any guarantee on any 

 principle of a eliding scale? Yes, f have considered 

 it very carefully and a good deal. If I hod been a 

 more expert witness, I should not have answered aa 

 I did : I am afraid I rapped my answer out without 

 due thought. I have considered it a great deal 

 since, and I think if you get a sufficient number of 

 reliable costings that your costings might be used 

 as the basis of th? price without actually fixing the 

 price. 



7679. That is not quite what I wanted to get at. 

 Tho difficulty I find is this. Starting with the assump- 

 tion that the farmer has to have some guarantee 

 given to him, in the interests of the State, to protect 

 him against loss by the world's prices owing to the 

 greater risks that ho is taking on in his business, 

 and assuming that he has to have somo guarantee 

 given to him, we are told by everybody who has come 

 here that it is desirable to have a policy laid down 

 for farmers for some years ahead say, five to eight 

 years. I suppose you would agree-with that? Yes, 

 I think so. 



7680. If that has to be done we are faced with this 

 difficulty, that everything which a farmer has to buy 

 varies from day to day, and also that the labour 

 which he has to employ can vary at a month's notice, 

 or, shall we say for practical purposes at the three 

 months' notice? You say the articles the farmer 

 has to buy? 



7681. Yes, his feeding-stuffs, his fertilisers, Ins 

 implements, and so on, are all fixed by the market 

 price leaving out control .prices and looking to the 

 future. The prices of all those things will vary from 

 day to day? There are very few things that are not 

 controlled to-day. 



7682. I am not considering the- things that are 

 controlled to-day. As I say. f am looking to tho 

 future, when prices will vary from day to day? 

 With an open market? 



7f>83. Ye. the price of everything tho farmer has 

 to buy will in the future vary from day to day. his 

 implements, his seed, his corn, his feeding-stuffs, and 

 liis labour, which is fixed under the Wages Board. 

 can be varied at a month's notice, or for practical 

 purposes at two to three months? Yi~ 



L To my mind that is an insuperable difficulty 

 in fixing any reliable guarantee for such a period 

 aa has been suggested, having regard to the change 

 in conditions and variations. Therefore, I am 

 anxious to see if it is possible to arrive at any 

 system by which a guarantee could bo fixed that 

 would vary according to some ratio either of wages 

 or of the cost of living or the cost of the expenses of 

 the farm, or something of that kind? That very 

 long question of yours simplified really means, do I 

 think it possible to have a scale of prices which may 

 l>r <ui a sliding scale according to what the farmer 

 may have to buy or may have to pay in wages? 



7685. Kitlier on a sliding scale fixed on wages, so 

 that if wages went up the guarantee went up, and if 

 wages went down the guarantee went down, or if tho 

 general costs went up tho guaranteed price would go 

 up. and if they went down the guaranteed price 

 would go down. Have you considered that sinco the 

 lust BesM.-ii' Yi-s. I have often thought of that, and 

 I have considered it again carefully since. I cannot 

 see any solution of it. 



7686. You cannot help us in that respect? No, I 

 am afraid not. You have brought up two things 

 which arc so very difficult. One (- the question 

 of the price of feeding-stuff'-, practically all of which 

 are imported. We have no control over them in this 

 country, and we ran not simulate the growth of 



