MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



15 



16 September, 1919.] 



MR. R. J. THOMPSON, O.B.E. 



[Continued. 



9280. Do you mean, the process of manufacture has 

 eliminated a considerable quantity of the phosphoric- 

 acid ? I think I may Bay that there are no very large 

 deposits of slag of a sufficiently good quality to make 

 it a commercial proposition to grind it. These large 

 dumps were tested during the war by the Ministry of 

 Munitions and some of them were utilised but you 

 vrry rapidly get to such a low contents of total phos- 

 phates as to make them too expensive to work. 



9281. Do you think that the quantity of basic slag 

 produced will be increased in the future? No, there 

 does not appear to be much prospect of an increase 

 in the quantity; a slight increase may be possible. 



9282. With regard to potash your opinion is that 

 the price must come down? Undoubtedly. 



9283. Owing to the supplies we shall obtain from 

 France? Quite owing to large quantities of potash 

 being now put upon the market both from Alsace and 

 from Germany. 



9284. So that on the whole you are of opinion that 

 the price of fertilisers will tend to come down ? As a 

 whole, yes. 



9285. The effect of the freights and the opening 

 up of new countries of supply which have hitherto 

 been shut out will have an effect upon the price of 

 these fertilisers? Yes, freights particularly. 



9286. Have the Board of Agriculture considered 

 whether land growing wheat 2 to 3 quarters an acre 

 is worth cultivating, having regard to the price of 

 fertilisers? I think that is rather outside my pro- 

 vince. I do not feel competent to answer that. 



9287. Do you think that the world's prices will be 

 affected by any minimum guaranteed price being fixed 

 in this country? Of course one would imagine that 

 a guaranteed price would have a tendency to keep 

 up prices elsewhere. 



9288. As a matter of fact we only produce two- 

 sevenths of our necessary wheat? Yes. 



9289. Therefore we must buy the other five-sevenths. 

 Quite. 



9290. If we have a minimum prico for our two 

 sevenths, the probability is that the other five-sevenths 

 will keep up to that price at least. 



I'hninntin: Are you quite certain that that is cross- 

 examination in relation to the witness* evidence-in- 

 chief? I do not mind your straying a bit from it. 

 but asking his opinion on that subject seems to me to 

 be rathor wide of his evidence. 



9291. Mr. .7. M. Henderson (to the Witness): You 

 come from the Board of Agriculture and have given 

 us evidence with regard to the prices of fertilisers 

 and feeding stuffs, but if you say you have not >M- 

 sidered the question and cannot answer it I am con- 

 tent 2 I do not feel that I have sufficient information 

 on the subject to give you any reply which would be 

 of value. 



9292. Mr. Thomas Ifemhrsrtn: Referring to para- 

 graph (I) of your evidence-in-chief, you way the makers 

 of sulphate of ammonia and superphosphates received 

 subsidies from the Government, which enabled those 

 two fertilisers to be sold at less than the actual cost 

 of production. Were actual costs of production sub- 

 mitted to your Board when these prices were fixed? 

 I'M strictly speaking to the Ministry of Munitions, 

 with whom we worked in close co-operation. 



9293. C'an you tell me the amount of these sub- 

 sidies? The subsidy on sulphate of ammonia was 

 2 10s. a ton plus an allowance for acid and bags 

 which \v;i- estimated at l*s. 4d. per ton, so that the 

 total was t.'i V. 4d. The matter is complicated by the 

 fart that the arid also had a subsidy on it so that it is 

 not possible exactly to ascertain the amount. 



'.>'2'.ll. Then as to superphosphate? In the case of 

 roperphocphate, raw materials that is to say the 

 rork phosphate and the acid - were supplied to the 

 manufacturers at prices which enabled them to pro- 

 duce .'V> per i. nt. superphosphate at fi 10<. per ton 

 delivered. It is almost irn|x>ssible to express it 

 in money ; very difficult at any rate. 



irJU';. You discontinued these subsidies this ye;ir? 

 Yes. on the 31st May. 



!)2f>6 On what ground did you discontinue them. 

 if that is a fair question?' Simply that the war 

 having come to an end it was proper to take off the 

 control. 



9297. Mr. Prosser Jones: Has your Department 

 given any attention to , the question of lime as a 

 substitute for fertilisers? Yes, we have given a 

 good deal of attention to the question of agricultural 

 lime. The position is that it is very dear, and the 

 supply insufficient as compared with the quantity 

 which ought to be used. 



9298. Do you not think that it would have been 

 well if the producers of lime had been encouraged by 

 means of a subsidy? One difficulty, of course, is 

 that lime is used for many other purposes than agri- 

 culture. 



9299. Have yoxi any means of knowing what profits 

 these trusts have been making during the war, when 

 they were receiving subsidies from the Government? 

 The fertiliser firms? 



9300. Yes? In the case of superphosphate the 

 accounts were very closely controlled and the margin 

 of profit which they made was very narrow. 



9301. Does that mean that you compared the profits 

 say, in the year 1914, wrtE those made in the year 

 1918? Quite. In the case of sulphate of ammonia 

 it is very much more difficult. 



9302. It is a side issue, is it? Yes. 



9303. As regards the production of machinery is 

 it your opinion that this country is giving the atten- 

 tion to the production of agricultural machinery that 

 it should do? I believe there is a great development 

 in that direction going on now, but of course, in 

 certain directions we are not pre-eminent as manu- 

 facturers of agricultural machinery. The binders 

 and reapers and so forth, are chiefly of American 

 manufacture. 



9304. I put it to you that this country has done 

 remarkably well in some departments as regards the 

 construction of machinery, and is it not possible that 

 it could do equally as well in the case of agricultural 

 machinery so as to eliminate imports? Yes, quite. 

 At the present time, of course, the exchange rate is 

 discouraging imports from .America. 



9300. Mr. Lniujjiird: I think you stated just now 

 that there was a subsidy given on the manufacture 

 of sulphate of ammonia. 1 ' Not at the present time; 

 it was given during 1918-19. 



9306. I think you said you took into consideration 

 the cost of production and then gave a subsidy to 

 make up the price. The point I want to get is this: 

 inasmuch as sulphate of ammonia is a by-product of 

 the manufacture of gas, how do you arrive at the 

 cost of production of sulphate of ammonia? I am 

 well aware of the difficulty of arriving at the cost of 

 sulphate of ammonia; it is not only a product of 

 gas, but of many other industries, iron and steel 

 works, coke ovens and shale oil, all of which have 

 different costs of production, even if one could 

 accurately ascertain the cost of production of a by- 

 product. The only reply is that a number of accounts 

 and tests were taken and an approximate average 

 was arrived at. 



9307. My point is that in every case it is a by- 

 product. Sulphate of ammonia is not manufactured 

 primarily in order to produce sulphate of ammonia? 

 No ; it is a by-product. 



9308. Was your department fully satisfied that there 

 was any need for a subsidy? Undoubtedly; when con- 

 ditions reach a certain point it is easy for the makers 

 of this material to allow the liquid to run away, 

 and if they are not sufficiently remunerated they will 

 not make it although it is a by-product. 



9309. I suggest to you that if they had not to do 

 so it would have been in the first place a very un- 

 patriotic act on the part of the manufacturers, and 

 in the next place that they would have lost consider 

 ably more than they would have done by manut'actur 

 ing it. What I am afraid of is that it will go out 

 to the public that this was a subsidy to the farmers 

 in the use of it rather than to the manufacturers in 

 the making of it? Perhaps I ought to explain that 

 the object of the subsidy was not to enable the 

 manufacturer to manufacture but to enable the sul- 

 phate of ammonia to be sold to farmers at a certain 

 price. In 1917 before there was a formal control 

 the price was fixed by a decision of the War Cabinet 

 at 16 per ton delivered. Subsequently it was found 



