SJ 



17 .ttpirmbfr, 1919.] 



liuVAI. t oMMI.sMnN MS Ai.lMd I. IT UK. 

 Mi: II. AliW'iri: ml Mil. (J. (' MM:, it: 



in.s'll. Part of it is old-- I'art of it is old. l.ut 

 >. i \ smull purl of it. 



lii.-i-J N it H good grasK- Vi-. n i- all right. 



l>.-!>3. And you really think that it would be a 

 puvmg proposition to farmer-it if they cannot get 

 what they are thinking about hi-rr to go in for grass 

 uanttMOtljrf It is the only alternative that is ln 

 Itir tin-in 



In. "94. Mr. l.nuHinl: Am I right in understanding 

 that thnwc estimates you hav> given us of the cost of 

 growing wheat, barley and oats are based on an 

 atcragc quality of land!' Yes, average quality 



III.MI.K Have" the directors of your Chamber r..n 

 s dered and approved these estimates? Yes. they have 

 miisidered them. 



l(l.-!*i. On land poorer than thin average quality 

 you would, I suppose e*|Mvt tin- rent to be lower!' 

 Quite; and of course on land poorer in quality the 

 tendency is to allow it to lie in pasture for so long 

 .in. I then it fertilises itself. Then possibly you get 

 tli.' grain crop with very little expense. Then you 

 |i:it it into grass again and allow it to recover. 

 That in the general rule in working jioor land. 



10.S97. Is it within your knowledge that agricul- 

 tural wages are considerably higher in Scotland than 

 they are in Kngland :- 1 could not exactly say. I 

 think they have risen, as far as I can sec. in propor- 

 tion more in Kngland than they have in Scotland, 

 Iml our wages were higher to begin with. 



in. 'IK And they are still a good deal higher!- Yes. 



IO.S99. In districts when- w ag< s are lower than they 

 are in Scotland should the figures you have given us 

 lx> more than sufficient to cover the cost of producing 

 i. -reals:' I think so. 



1(),!X)0. If you found that in spite of wages being 

 lower than they are in Scotland, the costs of produc- 

 tion in certain district* were higher than your own, 

 would that suggest to you that the quality of the 

 farming in those districts is inferior to the quality 

 of the farming in Scotland? You might find that 

 the quality of labour was inferior. 



10.901. By an even greater amount than the wages 

 were lower? I think powiihly the quality of the labour 

 }IM great deal to do with bad farming, just as 

 much as the farmer has. 



10.902. You suggest that though your wages are 

 higher in Scotland your cost of labour may be less?- 

 Ycs, I agree that is so. 



10.903. I notice that the figure you give for wheat 

 IN somewhat lower than the guarantee fixed by the 

 Corn Production Act for 1917? Y. s. 



10.904. Being 58s. for a quarter of 504 Ibs., as com- 

 pared with fiOs. per quarter of 480 H. : while the 

 figure you give for oats is somewhat higher than the 

 1917 guarantee. In-ing 4*s. ild. per quarter of 336 Ibs. 



id of 38s. 6d. per quarter of 312 Ibs. It works 

 out roughly at l-74d. per lb.. as compared with 

 l-4d. per lb. Would you mind explaining your 

 reasons for thai- You see I have treated all the 

 .Is alike: but there is no doubt that they ought 

 to In- debited to the wheat crop as regards great 

 deal of the expense in cleaning the land and tin- 

 extra mammal advantage it gcl.s limn l>cing left 

 MI the land. Hut I have not dealt with ibat extra 

 i leaninu that ought to be debited to the wheat. 



In, '.hi',. So you do not think that the proportions 

 between these prices you have given ns could be taken 

 a* a proper figure of the proportions bet ween the 

 guaranteed prices of these various eereals? I have 

 left that to the Commission itself, with the explana- 

 tion that I think the wheat ought to be debited wit'i 

 more than the other crops for the (leaning. 



10,906. Y< ; but it does not guide us very inn. h 

 indent we know by how milch you think? I think 1 

 would put it at C3 an acre nearly : that is a quarter <>t 

 hent. HO-.. That would add 12s. to it 



ln.!Xi7. Yon think that the proportion would be 

 right if we raised this ,W to 60s. ? No, to 70s. If 

 ou were to add 13, that is practically a quarter of 

 wheat at 60., which would be 12s. the quarter tli.it 

 you Hoiil.l have to add If you had not these cnndi 

 HOIK of being on your liest land and following a potato 

 imp. you would not get five quartets, and you Mould 

 hare to be content with four. Then you could divide 

 my result by four. 



10,9(K These costs which we are now transferring 

 to the wheat crop are charged in your figures against 

 the hurley and the oats? -And the wheat too. They 

 are spread over ; hut I am giving you that explanation. 



In.lKC.I. Hut you considci an amount equivalent 'o 

 12s. a quarter on the wheat About that; or take 



it at lour quarters instead of five, if >on did not follow 

 the potato crop. 



1(1,91(1. An a lint equivalent to 12s. a quarter 



which should go to the wheat is spread over the barley 

 and tin- oats in your figures ? ^ M 



1(1. !M1. How much of that 12s. should we have oil for 

 the barley and oats i espect ivcly ? I am trying to get 

 to something which would guide us as to the piop.T 

 proportion between the guaranteed prices for the 

 different cereals: I would not be inclined to put MTV 

 much against the oats at all: possibly tl per 

 I do not know how you would put it per quarter. I lie 

 oats certainly benefit by the cleaning operation, but 

 not to the same extent as the wheat. 



10,912. So that you would raise tl ats also? I 



would raise the oats, but not in the same proportion as 

 v heat. 



1(1, 913. I think we are rather at cross purpose - I 

 understood that these figures you had given us we.e 

 your own of the cost of producing rcspet t ively a quar- 

 ter of wheat, barley anil oats? Kxactly. 



10.914. Then I raised the question of the propor- 

 tions between these prices being very different from 

 the proportion between the guaranteed prices of the 

 Corn Production Act? Y'es; but my explanation to 

 you is this: that if you are not going to follow that 

 wheat after potatoes, then instead of averaging your 

 yield at five quarters you have to average it at four 

 quarters, and therefore you must debit so much of 

 the cleaning towards the wheat. 



10.915. But are not you now suggesting that these 

 figures should all be, or at any rate the wheat and oats, 

 higher than they really are? No; these are the exact 

 figures from my wages paid and the expenses divided 

 through the whole cereal crop; but I want to explain 

 to you that the wheat ought to be debited with a cer- 

 tain proportion of the expenses because it follows lh" 

 potatoes; and I suggest that instead of a yield of five 

 quarters, il you did not follow potatoes, you would 

 only have a yield of four quarters. 



10.9l(i. Yes; hut that total amount which ought to 

 be debited has been allowed for by you and spread over 

 the three cereals, has not it? No. I have not allowed 

 for it all. 



10.917. So that you now want to revise your figure 

 by bringing up your wheat price to 70s.:- Yes. that 

 would be, a, way. 



10.918. AVhat happens to your barley and your 

 oats!- The oats come in lasi. They do not get the 

 same benefit as the wheat. Wheat comes first, being 

 the first crop after a green crop, and naturally 



the full benefit. 



1(1.919. So that alters the pro|nirtion 



10.920. By how much would yon put it? I would 

 put it at about C.'t for wheat. 



1(1.921. So that your revised figure for wheat would 

 be 7Os. v Yes. that would be about it. 



10.922. What about the oats:- I would not put it 

 so high for the oats. I would say possibly oats 

 benefited by tl per acre. 



10.923. How much would that be a quarter?- That 

 would he 3s. a quarter. 



10.921. So that your oats would come up to Ms. 9d.? 

 Ycs . hut of course that would go to the credit of 



i lie cost of producing the potato crop. These figures 

 go to the debit of the cereal crop for cleaning, and 

 ill. -n they must go to the credit of the potato crop. 



10.92."). Yes. I quite understand : but I :im not yet 

 quite clear whether you consider that if guaranteed 

 pi ires were fixed for each of the cereal clops, the 

 proportion between those guaranteed prices should 

 follow these three figures you have given us here: 

 :>*s. for wheat: (iOs. 3d. for barley: and l^s 7<l. for 

 oats; or whether they should follow the new figures 

 you are now giving us? 1 think thai would be a 

 thing for consideration. 



