100 



K..VAI. COMMISSION ox AGRKTUTUE. 



29 S*j*,mfr, 1919.] 



MR. ,1 \MIS WYI.I.IK. 



\('..ntinitr<t. 



because I am not quite certain if I follow. It gays: 



It, .in. i'210, raUw 30 ISs. Od., taxes on 30 acre* 

 land i IV What is ilu> meaning of that? The 210 

 U the total rent of the faun of 110 acres. 



11.007. That is 38*. 2d. per acre. What I do not 

 follow are the next two items, " rates 30 18s. Od., 

 taiM on 90 acres land 45." There must be a mis- 

 print there somewhere? I am sorry I cannot quite 

 explain why that item of taxes should come in there. 



11.008. That is what I want to p I: ma\ ' 

 one of those coses where I have omitted to cut out 

 the income tax. Thai is the only possible explanation 

 I can offer. I might nay that in certain cases income 

 tax was put in, but of course we hare cut it out, and 

 it is possible I omitted to do that in this particular 

 ewe. 



11.009. I want to emphasise the fact that this is 

 Oarton's Supreme oats sown after turnips. I pre- 

 sume that is a very fine oat? It is a good yielder. 



12.000. In addition to that, this has got 22 waggon 

 loads of farmyard manure on to the oat crop. Does 

 that help you to account for the very high yield? 

 It certainly would help it a little. 



12.001. And that even after turnips. Yon do not 

 know whether the turnips were manured or not, do 

 youP No, I could not say. 



12.002. Now look at Farm No. 61,* the 1919 crop of 

 oat*. The rent is 1 16s. 6d., and you have under 



Cultivations " " Tractor plough (hired), 1 12s. 6d.," 

 and " Tractor cultivator (hired), 1." Would these 

 be less than what it would cost an individual if he 

 did the cultivation with his own implements? Do you 

 mean with a tractor plough or with horses? 



12.003. Either one or the other? It might bo more, 

 it might be less. 



12.004. Has it not been generally the case that the 

 hire so far of tractor ploughs or tractor cultivators 

 has been less than what the actual cost would have 

 been? If you are referring to tractor ploughing, 

 where it has been done by the Government it has been 

 done at a loss? 



12.005. Yes? Yes, I have always thought so. 



12.006. In this instance it is after barley, peas and 

 tares. Would you not have thought there should 

 have been some residual value charged against this 

 oat crop from the peas and tares? That is a very 

 dehn table point. 



12.007. Do you know what treatment they got with 

 regard to dung? No, I could not say. 



12.008. You notice in this particular instance also 

 that the estimated yield for 1919 is 52 bushels of grain 

 and 25 cwts. of straw, whereas the average over the 

 past five years is only 40 bushels of grain and 21 

 cwto. of straw. Have you any idea wliv this farmer 

 estimates to have so much bigger a yield this year? 

 This was a field of winter oa. 1 asked particularly 

 about that point. I thought possibly there had been 

 >me mistake in the figure but the farmer assured 

 me that he quite expected to get that yield. 



12.009. You did not see the crop yourself, did you? 

 \'-> I did not soe it. He admitted that he was 



going to be very fortunate with this particular crop. 



12.010. Now will you look at the cost of mangolds. 

 Farm No. 50*- this is the instance of sandv soil to 

 which Mr. Smith referred. If you look at the head- 

 ing you will find it is ""Sandv loam, easily 

 worked "f Quite so. 



12.011. That is slightly different from the mere 

 word "sandy." Will you also look at the artificial 

 manure* that thexe mangolds got in addition to farm- 

 yard manure. Thev got f. rwK of superphosphate*. 2 



cwN. of sulphate of ammonia, and 6 ewt. of salt 



pretty heavy artificial manuring, in it not? Not ex- 

 traordinnrv for mangold.". 



12.012. You start lo with the noil in clean condi- 

 tion. I notice? Yen. 



12.01.1. S., that although this farm is in Some 

 you get this good return, which is only what you v 



(Thf iri 



expect win n you see the details of the kind of land 

 i nil the condition in which it was, and the way 

 it w:is handl-ilr -Kxaetlv. 



I.Mill. Now will you Icxik at Part B, Section A 2,* 

 the I'.'lil crop of wheat ' Yiiu are probably aware that 

 there in n minimum guaranteed price of 75s. 6d.? 

 Yes. 



12.015. Do you observe that in 15 cases out of 24 

 for the 1919 crop the cost of production is over 

 75s. 6d.P Yes. 



12.016. In the other cases it is under 75s. Od. Do 

 you believe that in these 15 cases the fanners will 

 lose money if they only get 75s. 6d. a quarter for 

 their wheat? I do not see that I can believe anything 

 else. 



12.017. Coming to the barley, similarly the mini- 

 mum guaranteed price is nearly 70s. In the case of 

 the 1919 crop of barley you have eight instances where 

 the costs are over that, and three only where they 

 are under. The costs vary from 57s. 6d. to 105s. Id. 

 Do you think if the minimum price wa all that was 

 to be got that these eight farmers would lose money 

 on their barley crops? I do. 



12.018. Do you not think it is possible that the 

 yields per acre which are estimated may be slightly 

 under what they will turn out? It is possible. 



12.019. Would you agree with me that it is very 

 likely that the costs are probably more accurate than 

 the estimated yields? Undoubtedly there is possibly 

 a bigger chance of error in the yield than there is in 

 the costs. 



12.020. A very slight variation in the yield would 

 turn the loss into a profit? Another 2 bushels per 

 acre would make a big differe7ice. 



12.021. Now to deal with the oats, the minimum 

 guaranteed price for 1919 is about 47s. 6d. Do you 

 notice that out of the seven cases in six it costs more 

 than 47s. 6d. to produce the oats, and in only one 

 case is the cost under the minimum guaranteed price, 

 the costs varying from 3fis. 3d. to 75s. 4d. In the 

 same way do you not think that in some of these 

 cases the yields are too low? In that particular con- 

 nection one is forced to accept the farmers' estimate 

 for this particular crop. 



12.022. Would you agree that the farmers in esti- 

 mating yields, if they err at all, will err in estimat- 

 ing them low enough? I am not sure that I would 

 like to put it so definitely as that. 



12.023. For the purpose for which the estimates 

 are made? One would naturally expect, knowing the 

 purpose, that they would not he likely to over- 

 estimate the yield. 



12.024. Exactly. I notice in many instances I 

 need not detail them that the estimated yields where 

 you can compare them with the average .vields are 



: lian the previous average: 1 Of mane. I hope 

 you will keep in mind that in this particular year 

 the yields are comparatively poor. 



12.025. Quite; they are. That is what I want t 

 find out. Are you of opinion that the yields for this 

 particular year are down probably from the average 

 because of the treatment land in general has got 

 since the war began by so much being taken out of 

 it and so little put in? T suppose taking the 

 country as a whole one would be forced to that con- 

 clusion, but I would not like to say thnt that applies 

 to all of these cases. 



12.026. No, it was a General question I was asking 

 you. that in general the land of the country is not 

 in as good a condition as it was at the beginninK of 

 the War the arable land? I do not think there is 

 much doubt about that. My own experience is that 

 there has been a considerable amount of what yon 

 would call dilapidation going on. 



12.027. And cross cropping? Yes. cross cropping. 



12.028. Taking fertility out of the land without 

 putting anything back in exchange? Certainly. 

 withdrew.) 



Appendix IV. 



