MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



35 



16 September, 1919.] 



PROFESSOR E. G. WHITE. 



[Continued. 



though of course I cannot possibly attempt to do all 

 the detailed work of the farm, which is left to a 

 working bailiff. 



9975. You have a working bailiff under you ? Yes. 



9976. But do you direct the cropping of it under 

 the various operations? \es, entirely subject to the 

 approval of a small farming committee. 



9977. Who does this farming committee consist of? 

 I do not want the names, but what are they? There 

 are three members, an Anglesea farmer, a Denbigh- 

 hire farmer, and another. 



9978. Three practical farmers meet in consultation 

 with you, do they? Yes. As a matter of fact they 

 meet very seldom, and they leave all the ordinary 

 working of the farm to me. Thev meet to settle 

 questions when any large capital expenditure is 

 required, or anything of that kind. 



9979. But the primary object, I understand, is in- 

 structional? Yes, instructional and experimental. 



9980. The first year and the second year show a loss ; 

 but the third year, that is the year 1913, shows a 

 balance on the right side of 94 9s. lid. I understood 

 the Government grant you set off against the cost of 

 the experimental work? Yes. 



9981. That is about balanced? It is about balanced. 



9982. And the rest is the commercial 'result? Yes. 

 I think, as I said in reply to a previous question, the 

 farm, regarded as a purely commercial undertaking, 

 is a little out of pocket by the experimental work ; but 

 it is very difficult to ascertain the exact cost of 

 experimental work. 



9983. But you would say you ought to have credit 

 for something more than the 200? Yes, but it would 

 not be anything very serious. 



9984. I see on the 12th November, 1913, the year 

 showed a balance on the right side of 94 9s. lid., but 

 against that has to be set the interest and manage- 

 ment, has it not ? Yes. 



9985. So that that shows a loss? Yes. 



9986. In the year ending 12th November, 1914, 

 there is again a balance on the right side of 115 

 7s. 8d., but that goes away under the same two items? 

 Ye. 



9987. Was the capital roughly about 6,000 at that 

 time? I think you might take it about 6,000; but 

 I should like to enter a protest against taking any 

 one year by itself. 



9988. I am going to take them all. As a matter of 

 fact, as a public institution I think you have done 

 extremely well ; but from the point of view of a busi- 

 ness undertaking I have my doubts. This shows 

 115 7s. 8d. again to be interest on capital and 

 managers' remuneration. Take the next year, 12th 

 November, 1915. That shows a balance on the right 

 side of 49 12s. 2d.? Yes. 



9989. We have now got into the first year of the 

 war ? I might say that includes a complete war year, 

 l.<" :mse our financial year is November 12th. 



9990. You are right, it does. Even then it only 

 shows a balance on the right side of 49 ; but I notice 

 the valuation has increased from 5,357 8s. 4d. to 

 5,765 14s. lid. ? Yes ; but still that is allowed for 

 in the working account. It does not affect the ques- 

 tion of profit or loss. 



9991. No; but I was going to ask you, had not there 

 :i rise or appreciation in the value of all farming 

 'luring that year? No. I do not know whether 



you wore in tlm room when I explained that to a pre- 

 vious Commissioner. In making our valuations, we 

 .I'lopterl tin- policy of keeping the valuation of 

 what you might call permanent stock of the farm at 

 pretty much the same from year to year, provided 

 that the quality of the stock is the same. 



)992. I am aware of that. I read that in your 



but I niKlerstood from that paper, which is 



M-ch:ef as it were, that your breeding 



flock and that sort of thing you kept at a constant 



figure? Yes. 



Wt] 



9993. But the items that you expected or knew 

 you would sell, you took upon a valuation ? Lees than 

 a full market valuation, but something more nearly 

 approaching a market valuation. 



9994. That would include the corn, for instance? 

 Yes. 



9995. And I suppose that would include the cattle 

 you were going to sell. I see here, for instance, you 

 have a good many cattle? Yes, we have about 100 

 cattle. 



9996. As they are increasing in value from the 

 beginning of the year to the end, you take this 

 somewhere approximately at market value, I suppose? 

 No, the cattle are taken at practically the same 

 value each year. For instance, as I pointed out, 

 the cows last year were taken at about 18 a piece, 

 and the same with the young stock. 



9997. Supposing you have a 6 months old calf at 

 the beginning of the year, he is 18 months old the 

 following year. You do not put the same price for 

 that, do you ? No, but an 18 months old animal this 

 year is put at the same value as an 18 months old 

 animal last year, provided he is a similar quality. 



9998. And that is so all the way through? Yes. 



9999. So that, am I right in saying that the only 

 increase in value arising from the appreciation of 

 values as distinct from quality, would be the corn? 



Practically all in the corn There is a little in the 

 hay. 



10.000. But there are no means of picking out from 

 these figures what it .is, because there is only a balance 

 of 49 here against hay. The Chairman points out 

 to me that you do charge the farm with the additions 

 to farm buildings 407 19s. 10d.? Yes. We put up 

 a new Dutch barn and new implement shed, and one 

 or two smaller things. , 



10.001 . So that you are charging against the income 

 of the vear the whole of the capital expenditure on 

 that? Yes. 



10,003. It is not a proportion ? No, it is the whole 

 of the total cost. We wrote it off. 



10.003. Then you are really doing the farm an 

 injustice from the commercial point of view? Yes, 

 you will see from my prfc is which has been circulated, 

 taking the 8 years as a whole, I credit the farm 

 with 500. 



10.004. Were those brick or stone buildings that 

 you put up? Stone buildings; and an iron and zinc 

 shed. The whole of that was written off against the 

 year. 



16.005. 38 8e. 10d.? Yes. There is a larger 

 amount in another year somewhere. 



10.006. Then in the year ending 12th November, 

 1916, you show a balance on the right side of 

 649 IB 2d., and in that year you see the valuation 

 is increased from 5,765 14s. lid. to 6,181 7s. 2d. 

 That is a considerable appreciation. Is not a good 

 deal of that due to the appreciation of the stock? 

 No, except as regards the grain. If you look at the 

 balance sheet, you will see in the valuation that at 

 the end of 1916 grain was 713. In the previous 

 year it was 507. 



10.007. This shows how the valuations are made 

 out? Yes. 



10.008. Is that the only increase due to the increased 

 appreciation? If you would like the details, I have 

 them . 



10.009. No? I think you may take it that this 

 appreciation only affects the corn in ricks, and wool 

 which appears in the valuation that year. That wool 

 would be taken practically at market price. 



10.010. The reason I am asking these questions 

 is this : that 1916 and 1917 were generally the most 

 profitable years farmers have had, and your accounts 

 bear that out, but a great part of the profit, so far 

 as I have ascertained from what has come before us, 

 has always been due to the appreciation of stocks? 

 I think you may take it that in our accounts that 

 is not the case, except so far as grain and wool are 

 concerned, and to a small extent hay and potatoes; 

 but the potatoes are so small that they do not affect 



o a 



