MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



59 



12 August, 1919.] 



THE HON. EDWARD STKDTT, C.H. 



[Continued. 



With regard to the crops, farmyard manure is 

 charged against the crop to which it has been applied ; 

 the unexhausted manurial value is carried over to 

 succeeding crops. 



The Commission will observe that the total cost for 

 growing wheat amounts to 14 11s. 9d. for 1918, in- 

 cluding superintendence and interest on capital, but 

 allowing nothing for profit. The cost for 1919 would 

 naturally bo larger, but the crop is lighter and so 

 harvest expenses \vill be considerably less, and there- 

 fore it may not come to very much more money. It 

 has to be remembered that the capital now .employed 

 in agriculture is from 15 to 20 an acre, whereas 

 it used to be from 7 to 10, and so a considerably 

 larger return per acre is necessary to make it worth 

 while for anyone to invest in farming. 



1342. (9) I am putting forward a comparison be- 

 tween a mixed arable and grass farm and one entirely 

 grass (No. 4), stating the expenses for the average 

 three years, 1912, 1913, and 1914. The grass farm 

 is on the marshes adjoining the sea, and is entirely 

 unsuitable for cultivation. It will be observed that 

 the labour on this grass farm is 86 a year when there 

 was one man kept all the year round, and a little 

 hay made for winter use. If this were increased by 

 150 per cent, the additional cost on the 500 acres 

 would be 129, which would represent on the 500 

 acre* 5s. 2d. per acre. The same rise on the mixed 

 farm would amount to 1,995, or a rise of 4 4s. Od. 

 per acre. 



There is also of course an increase on seeds, 

 manures, expenses of horses, implements besides this 

 on the mixed farm which does not apply to the grass 

 farm. Is there not a danger that the farmer will 

 wish to lessen his risks, and perhaps increase his 

 profits, by putting his farm under grass? 



1343. (10) Under the Corn Production Act the 

 minimum price guaranteed for wheat is 45s. for 1920 

 and the two succeeding years; and oats, 24s. Though 

 of course the minimum price is not the maximum, it 

 is quite evident that this price will not be sufficient, 

 and if the desired result it to be obtained, and con- 

 fidence given, this will have to be considerably raised 

 and the period lengthened. 



Personally, I have been a strong supporter of the 

 Corn Production Act giving a guaranteed minimum 

 I>rire and a minimum wage for the agricultural 

 labourer. Among those who originally supported 

 this proposal, the suggestion was that the Wages 

 Bo*rd should simply fix the minimum wage and should 

 not attempt to fix the standard wage for men em- 

 ployed in the industry. If this were done a good 

 deal of difficulty might be avoided, and the less effi- 

 cient agricultural labourer would not be in danger of 

 being out of employment during the slack months 

 of the year. 



KM 4. (11) It is generally desired by those who con- 

 sider the health of the community that there should 

 be a large increase in the supply of milk. This at 

 it will be very difficult to provide, as farmers 

 are nervous if they increase the number of cows, one 

 day there may come a slump in the price of milk and 

 the Value of oows, then there will be a large loss of 

 capital. Milk is also a very troublesome business 

 and is a constant worry. Many who have thought 

 over this matter are of opinion that the only way of 

 maintaining such milk supplies as are required will 

 !* l>y guaranteeing the price of cheese. There was 

 an art id., in the " Times" by their agricultural cor- 

 >mmending this course some months 

 ago, and probably this, combined with the increased 

 guarantee under the Corn Production Act, would do 

 more to keep the land well cultivated, and an agricul- 

 tural population on the land, than anything else that 

 can be suggested. 



[This concludes the. e.vidence-in-chiff.] 

 Chairman : I will ask Dr. Douglas to commence the 

 questions which he may think necessary to put to 

 you. 



l.'!(5. Dr. Douglas: I see you say in the third part 

 of paragraph 2: "There is little doubt that during 

 the hustle of the war a pro]>ortion of the grass- 

 land ploughed up was unsuitable for the purp 

 Would von develop that a little and explain 



why and in what respects? The Agricultural Com- 

 mittees were asked to get as much grass land ploughed 

 up as possible, with the object of increasing the pro- 

 duction of corn. This was done a good deal through 

 the District Committees in the English counties, and 

 some of the District Committees had an idea that 

 everybody should do their share. The result was that 

 some people who had some very unsuitable land for 

 ploughing up were asked to plough their land up, and 

 they did so. The probability is that it was eco- 

 nomically a mistake to do that. It was only the 

 absolute importance of getting more corn that justi- 

 fied them in doing it at all. 



1346. What were the chief causes of unsuitableness 

 and loss? Through the land being very wet and un- 

 drained in many cases, and perhaps being very heavy 

 land. Those would be the chief causes. 



1346A. Was there much loss from parasites? Yes, 

 from wireworm of course, but I do not think that that 

 applied to any one description of land more than 

 another; I think it depended a good deal upon the 

 management. 



1347. There seems to have been a great deal more 

 loss in respect of that land in England than in Scot- 

 land ? Yes, I think that is so. 



1348. Can you suggest any reason for that? I 

 think the reason was because perhaps the District 

 Committees did not do it in Scotland the same way 

 as they did it in England. The District Committees 

 were so. anxious to be fair, as they thought, and were 

 so anxious that everybody should do their share in 

 this country, that the result was that some people did 

 their share who ought to have done nothing at all 

 because their land was not suitable. I think that is 

 the reason. 



1349. On the whole, was the land ploughed to a suffi- 

 cient depth, do you think? Some of it was. Some 

 people did not do it properly and some did not try 

 their best, but on the whole I think it was ploughed 

 deep enough. 



1350. Has a good deal of that land reverted to grass 

 already, do you think? Yes. 



1351. If you compared the years 1914-15, is the 

 proportion much less than in 1919? I should not like 

 to say that. I asked for the June statistics the other 

 day, but they had not got them. There is a certain 

 amount of the land which was not cropped in 1918 

 at all ; it was only bare fallow. That land was cropped 

 for the first time in 1919. 



1352. Ploughed up without being cropped at all? 

 Yes, late in the summer July or something of that 

 sort. 



1353. Was that by the instruction of the District 

 Committee ? Yes. 



1354. Would you think it unusual to find the same 

 amount of land under grain in a district in 1919 as 

 compared with 1918? I should not like to say that. 

 I personally have not got so much land under grain 

 this year as I had in 1918 quite, and the season has 

 been very bad for this year too. That would affect 

 it as well. The season would make less for 1919. 



1355. I have been surprised to find exactly the same 

 amount :n certain districts that are known to me in 

 191!) as in 1918? I do not think there would be so 

 much less as people generally imagine. That is my 

 view; but we do not know, you see; we shall know 

 soon. 



1356. You think there will be in the near future a 

 strong tendency for land which has 'been ploughed up 

 to go back to grass? The heavy land will go back 

 the three or four horse land. 



1357. But not on the whole the light land which 

 was in pasture will not go back? That depends on the 

 prices. 



1358. Your answer is that that would depend on the 

 farmer's view of what prices are likely to be? Yes. 



1359. At present prices, or approximately present 

 prices, do you think the land would remain in cultiva- 

 tion? I think all except the very heavy land could 

 remain in cultivation I do not say it will 



