y 



linVAl. I'.iMMlSSlM.V ,,\ Al.ltlcn.TfUK. 



, 1919.] 



Mi: JAMES WYI.UE. 



nurd. 



11,989. Of oourte even on those figures, leaving out 

 your t-xtromo CBMO, they run I'nnn til!*, to 108*. h Of 

 courao, M I have aid before, 1 think that tin- only 

 poxible guido one can got from tip.-. particular 

 figure* is to leave out the extremes at either ond unit 

 then take the average of the others on a fctundard. 



11,93;). Then you really do come back to averaging!' 

 Yec, you mu.st get some figure as a standard, I 

 would not cnll a nn average. 



11. :'.(!. I understood you to say that :u. raging was 

 not the propor principle? It would nut iieij 

 directly. What I mean is, you could not take' an 

 average from these figures and tal.e that as the basis 

 for iixing prices; you would have to make some 

 allowance. 



11,930. Would you develop what it is you do suggest, 

 because I am afraid I do not follow? I am sorry 

 I cannot quito sec my way through this. Von would 

 get an average from these farms where tin- manage- 

 ment is, I consider, better than in tin- average of the 

 farms. You would got an averngo from theee farms 

 which would only apply to farmers who would all ho 

 classed "5 per cent, and ovir as regards management, 

 and you would have to make some allowance for the 

 fact. What allowance you would have to make I 

 would not like to say. 



11.936. So that really we are a long way from any 

 costings basis in these figures? I do not quite follow 

 that question. 



11.937. These figures do not give us anything that 

 we could call a costings basis. We should have to 

 mak all sorts of allowances and discriminations, and 

 the ultimate result would depend very much more upon 

 these allowances and discriminations than upon tho 

 figures themselves ? Yes, and I submit you will always 

 have to do that. 



11,933. You mentioned a point about what I was 

 going to ask you : you said that -these farmers were 

 above the average of the country. I suppose you have 

 had a good deal of personal contact with these 

 farmers? I think I can say I have met the majority of 

 them. 



11.939. You are accustomed in your ordinary work 

 to be a great deal in touch with and in communica- 

 tion with farmers? I am. 



11.940. You have formed the impression that these 

 men were men who were distinctly above the average? 

 Distinctly. 



11.941. It would not be likely that so economical 

 a result of' production would bo obtained by farmers 

 generally? I should not think so. 



11.942. Take the case of Farm No. 38*, where you 

 have a fairly high cost of potato growing. You 

 detail a number of operations. Were these operations 

 all actually performed in the year under review? 

 Yes, I ani told so. 



11.943. These are all, of course, desirable operations. 

 Would you not think that a producer was rather for- 

 tunate in his weather conditions if he was able to 

 carry out all these operations in a single season? I 

 find that the amount of work which is given to pota- 

 toes as well as to other crops varies very considerably 

 from district to district, and an outsider going into 

 a certain district is inclined to say that farmers are 

 really wasting their work. But it is very difficult for 

 one who does not know the local conditions to judge 

 as to whether that is the case or not. 



11.944. Even if a very large number of operations 

 were desirable in potato growing, there are many 

 season* in which they cannot nil li.- carried out. Is 

 not that so? A man* has often to do with less in tho 

 way of weeding, and so on, in some seasons than he 

 would wish to do? That is quite true. 



11,94,5. Was tho crop in this case estimated, or was 

 it actually ascertained and sold? That was the actual 

 crop, I am told, in thin particular year. It is the 1918 

 .. to that we were able to get the actual yield. 



11.M6. It was only an average crop, was it not the 

 yield in just about the average, is it not? I would 

 not like to say definitely with regard to Kent, hue 1 

 should say it in rather more than the average fur Kent 



11 017. With all these operations you would expect 

 rather more than an average in a favourable V ear such 

 ai 1918? Yes, certainly. 



11.948. M In your Appendix B* you have 



given us two schedules of grain production, one fnr 



1918 and one for 1919 for wheat, barley oats. I see, 

 however, that the farms taken in the two wars are not 

 the same I mean you have taken one set of farms 

 in HUS and another set in 1919? That is so. 



11,948A. Are the conditions much the same? Did you 

 wNh us to compare the year's costs one with another:- 

 I might explain with regard to that point that our 

 first intention was to confine our attention to the I'M- 

 crops, because wo had only balance-sheets to show 

 for 191rt crops. That was our first intention. Then 

 we were asked specially to investigate the cost of pro- 

 duction at the present nine. Wo had, of coui 

 take the 1919 crops, and it was going to be asking too 

 much of different farmers to prepare these statements 

 for both years. We had to take either one year or the 

 other. 



11,9-19. If you mean us to compare one year with 

 the other do you think that the nature of the farms 

 taken is really such as to be comparable that is to 

 .say. that we may take the 1919 ro-tilts as they stand 

 and apply them to tho farm in question in the 1918 

 figures? I should think, speaking roughly, that that 

 would be quite fair. 



11.950. So that on the average of the country 

 generally the increase shown in the I'.Hli li--t would 

 apply over those shown in the 101 s list? I would 

 not like to say definitely without going through them 

 in more detail, but considering the way in which 

 the farms were selected because we were at some 

 pains to select typical farms I should think there 

 would be a certain comparison possible. 



11.951. You do not think there' would be any great 

 discrepancy between them, say, that the 1919 farm 

 might be stronger land and would incur more ex- 

 pense in the working of it? No, I do not think so. 



11.952. The costs are simply given at per acre for 

 each farm, but the costs vary a lot. and if we added 

 up tho total of this column, " Costs per acre," and 

 divided it by tho number of farms, that would give 

 us an average cost in one sense. You might say it 

 would give the average cost of producing wheat upon 

 this number of farms? Yes; but unfortunately you 

 will find that in some of those cases the costs apply 

 to a much bigger acreage than in other ca 



11.953. That is what I was trying to get at; it 

 would not really give us a true result as to the cost 

 per acre? No, I am afraid it would not. 



11.954. There are several of them about 19; they 

 might be either! the largest or the smallest, and which- 

 ever they were would affect the result considerably? 

 That is so. 



11.955. You cannot help us in that respect, I 

 suppose? It would bo possible. I think, to put in, 

 in the majority of cases, tho acreages to which tho 

 costs apply. That was one question which was asked 

 as a matter of fact. We asked specifically for th'at 

 particular reason for the acreage to which tho costs 

 referred, and I think we should lie a hie to got tho 

 acreage in the majority of cases. 



11.956. Do you think you will be able to supply us 

 with that? I think that can be done. 



11.957. Because it looks, does it not, from your 

 replies to Dr. Douglas' question as if it would have 

 to go on some sort of system of averaging at the 

 finish? Yes, I am afraid it is difficult to get away 

 from it. 



11.958. Do you yourself think, as a costing expert, 

 that from taking individual farms we can get at any 

 costs which would be, we will say, a reliable index 

 of the country generally?! might say on that point 

 that our difficulty has been tho shortage of time. 

 If we had been able to get, instead of 200 statements, 

 2,000 statements, then you might have been able 

 to get an average which would have been of some use. 



1 1 .959. That is tho averngo again. You think that 

 we must work on some system of average, do you 



hut my difficulty with regard to what we have 

 is that we h:iv<- MI< )i a -mall number of cases. 



An average over 2,000 cases would be a much sounder 



average than an average over 20. 



11.960. Yes, I agree. With more time you could 

 have got more individual cases, which would have 

 given a larger lot on which to ba.se tho average? 

 Yes. certainly. 



11.961. These that you have taken I think you in- 

 dicated were with regard to the better class of farm 



See Appendix IV. 



