MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



17 Xtfiember, l'J19.] 



Mi:. H. ARMUCK and MK. G. G. MEKCEK. 



[Continued. 



10.801. Only fairly well:- Yes, only fairly well. 



10.802. These figures rather suggest the opposite, 

 do they not? I do not know that they do. 



10.803. As far as I can work them out, it seems 

 to me that on 66 acres of wheat you made a profit 

 of C346 10s. That is not had, is it? I do not think 

 there is that profit in it. (Mr. Mercer) : What ahout 

 the loss on the turnip crop in the Lothians this last 

 year? They had a miserable turnip crop last year. 



10.804. You know more about that than I; but in 

 my business in Scotland, I marvel at the wonderful 

 turnip crops I see everywhere;' This year it was so, 

 perhaps. 



10.805. This year and the year before? I can give 

 you a figure which will interest you. I have 

 .usually stored 1,200 loads of turnips, but I do not 

 think I drove into my steadings last year 150 loads. 

 That was something like the proportion of the turnip 

 crop last year, and it was costing far more to raise. 



10.806. I have no information as to details in that 

 respect; but all I can say is that I have never seen 

 such crops in England? These are things that per- 

 haps people want to know. 



10.807. This year you could see very blank spaces 

 in some fields in England; but I failed to see any 

 blank spaces when I was going up the Eat Coast to 

 Edinburgh? (Mr. .Iruiinir) : Have you gone up above 

 Edinburgh towards Aberdeen? 



10.808. Last year I saw some fields, and they looked 

 exceedingly well"? Last year we had a good crop and it 

 yielded well ; but this year it will not. 



10.809. Do you. suggest then that there is a loss 

 on turnip* P (Mr. Mrrcer): A. very distinct loss. 

 i. Mr. .[nii'iiir): There is a decided loss on turnips. 



10.810. What about hay? Last year there was a 

 profit. 



10.811. Would it be fair to assume that with the 

 interest on your capital which you reckon at 10s. 

 an acre, you make 1.(XX) on your farm? No. 



10,812.' That would not be a fair assumption? No, 

 I could not make 1 1.000. 



10.813. You spoke of the fact that the land has 

 deteriorated, and that it will cost a great deal to get 

 it back into the proper condition? - S'vs. that is so. 



10.814. Do you think that that cost ought to be 

 charged up to" the future years' working entirely? 

 It is expense, that ought to have been expended on 

 the past crops; but it is the future crops that will 

 have to pay for it. 



1(1. S|r ( . Hut. surely, in the ordinary way of business 

 there would have been a reserve- i'nnd established. 

 seeing that yon were not expending all that you were 

 entitled to do and might have to expend more later. 

 Would it be fair therefore to say that out of what 

 would be a normal profit :is compared with normal 

 times, some of that money should be earmarked for 

 cleaning the land bttaiue it ha, not been spent in 

 these years? We are very much in the samu position 

 as a man who was cashing deposit receipts ami put- 

 ting it to current account. That is what we were 

 doing in the past two years, and we have that 

 to replace now and in the future. 



10.816. Not having expended it in cash, you earned 

 a little by it. did you not? It has cost us more, and 

 we have deteriorated our land. 



10.817. You say the land will have to go down to 

 unless there is some guarantee given to the 



farmers? The process lias already begun. 



10.818. Can you tell us what will be done with 

 tin- farm, when they arc down to grass? -They will 

 be worked at very little expense. 



10.819. For what purpose; what kind of farm ?- 

 They will be stocked with sheep and cattle. 



10.820. I understood you to say in answer to <i\ie- 

 that the breeding of sheep did not pay and 



tb:.t cattle did not pay ? Not in that way. I said 

 it did not pay to raise these crops and consume 

 straw in your courts and raise turnips to feed the 

 cattle fat; but it is a very different tiling if yon 

 )>cgin to breed your cattle and gradually feed them 

 off the g/iiss and have no labour on your farm at all. 

 and produce no manure except wluit you produce in 

 thn cattle courts. Then you can work the farm 

 My at a piofit to the farmer, but a very serious 

 IOM to the country. 



10.821. If the farmers put all their farms down 

 to grass, would not that create very great difficulty 

 by producing one particular kind of thing? No. 

 They will only produce beef, and there is no limit to 

 the consumption of beef in this country. We cannot 

 supply half of it. 



10.822. But is it not possible that the importation 

 of foreign grown meat would have an effect on the 

 situation and make it unprofitable to the grower? 

 Yes, I agree with you that is what will happen. 



10.823. So therefore the farmer looks like going 

 out altogether? To a great extent profitable farming 

 would go down 



10.824. You do not think that this is a l:ogey that 

 farmers have persuaded themselves into, and believe 

 in as a reality? If our costs of production are 

 to be maintained at anything like the present high 

 standard, we see nothing else in front of us but 

 bankruptcy. \Ve know what has happened to us in 

 the past, and the same thing will happen to us in the 

 future. 



10.825. But have you considered this question from 

 the point of view of market prices keeping up with 

 the natural play of the market ? I will tell you what 

 was in most formers' minds this year about hay. 

 There is not a farmer but who considered that the 

 price of hay would be down to 4 this year; and if 

 there had not been the drought in England, that is 

 w hat the price would have been. There would have 

 been over production in hay, and you would not have 

 to go many years until you found over production in 

 hay and over production in potatoes, and gradually 

 you would find over production of cereals, too. That 

 is what most of the farmers are thinking. 



10.826. Over production in cereals, do you suggest? 

 I think so. In a few years you will find there will 

 b not over production in this sense, but there will be 

 a surplus of cereals put into the country that will 

 put the growing of cereals out of this country. 



10.827. Is it not a fact that in very many cases in 

 Scotland the fanners are? prepared to take their 

 chance in the fiiture with some amount of confidence 

 apart from iny guarantee? Yes, you find farmers 

 with a great (leal of hope. They are hoping always 

 for the best ; but you must recollect that a great 

 many farms have changed hands in Scotland through 

 sheer inability to make them pay. 



10. s2*. Do you suggest that farmers have gone out 

 this year? Xo. not this year; but prior to the war 

 and before the South African war farmers were mak- 

 ing losses ; there wa>j no profit in it. The labourer was 

 paid nothing. Women were only ]>aid H. or 9s. a 

 week. That state of matters cannot continue in this 

 country now. 



[0,839. What do you base your fear upon in regard 

 to the falling of prices? The consumption of oats 

 and the consumption of hay will be very materially 

 reduced owing to the alteration in various forms of 

 t i-ans|M>rt. Trans|x>rt will not be done to the same 

 extent with horses as it was before the war. That 

 would be one element that would tell. Another el<>- 

 iiiont is the quantities of food brought over from 

 America to Knrope. When all that is brought to 

 bear on the civil population, the prices arc bound to 

 come down, and when prices come down out goes the 

 arable cultivation. 



10.830. Are not farmers always arguing that the 

 horse 1 transport will go out since motor transport 

 came in'; and is not it tJie fact that the price of 

 horses 1ms increased, which rather shows the con- 

 trary? Yes; if you have so many horses and take 

 them out and shoot them, you are ?K>nnd to increase 

 the price of horses. 



10.831. 1 am talking of be-fore the war? No, there 

 was not a great deal of increase in the price of horses 

 before the war. 



10.832. But there was no decrease. Tf there was 

 any alteration, I suggest there was an increase? 

 No. 1 would not say there was any great increase. 

 Seconci rate horses were cheap; but if you wanted a 

 good horse it was 50 or 60. In 1872 they were> 

 much higher than they were before this war. 



10,8.').'). Do you know any farmers who actually keie-p 

 accounts and work out a balance sheet of their 

 farms? I do not know manv. 



