12 Aii-gust, 1919.] 



MINUTES OF EVI.DENCK. 

 THE HON. EDWARD STRUTT, C.H. 



65 



[Continued. 



at once? I do not say the farmer would only get 60s. 

 a quarter. 60s. would be the minimum price. He 

 would have a free hand and would get the market 

 price, whatever it was. 



1500. The trouble is that the farmer does not be- 

 lieve in the future? Yes, that is so. When we saw 

 Sir James Wilson saying something about it being 

 40s. a quarter in the near future. 



1501. Under the Corn Production Act the farmer 

 is paid on the basis of four quarters of wheat and 

 five quarters of oats? Yes. 



1502. Do you think the Government have done the 

 right thing in making a reduction on the oats and on 

 the barley for the 1919 crop? Are they doing that? 



1503. Yes, certainly. Do you believe in that policy ? 

 No, I do not believe in that policy at all, and I 

 am very surprised to hear that they are doing it. 



1504. They are making a reduction. I am glad 

 you support the general feeling of agriculturists as 

 regards this, because I think it is a very strong 

 point? Under the present Corn Production Act you 

 get the whole. 



1505. Yes, but not in the 1919 prices? We get the 

 whole of the wheat, but only a proportion of the 

 barley and oats. I do not think it matters much, 

 but at the same time I agree it is not fair ; I do 

 not approve of it. 



1506. There is only one item I want to discuss with 

 regard to your wheat statement for threshing. Mr. 

 Anker Simmons' experience is that you cannot get it 

 done under 8s. My experience is that this year it 

 costs nearer 10s. With the price of threshing and the 

 price of coal, and so on, we worked it out at 9s. 6d. ? 

 I may l>o wrong about that. I fixed this price at 

 Michaelmas. 1917, and I did not realise that it was 

 going to increase so largely. 



1507. All I wanted you to do was to admit that it 

 was on the low side? Yes. Perhaps it is 2s. on the 

 low side. 



1508. An to the question of tho seed, how much do 

 you sow? Two and a half bushels. 8omo bailiffs like 

 to sow more, but if you ask me, T sow 2J. 



1509. That comes to a good deal more than 24s. 

 under last year's prices. I have not reckoned it up, 

 hut it is a good deal more? Is it for 1918? 



1510. Yes, on the 1918 crop? At 10s. a bushel for 

 2J bushels that would be 25s., and wheat was not 80s. 



1511. You nro putting it at the minimum ? Taking 

 the average at 75s.. it would come to less than 24s.. 

 would it not? 



I"il2. I only wanted to point out that in my opinion 

 timnti' is a low one, and that you have admittoil 

 entirely? Yes, I admit that; but that is what we 

 paid and what we booked against ourselves for it. 

 I suppose we booked our home-grown wheat at what 

 wo sold it at. 



1513. Mr. Batchelor: You have told us that you 

 have a ledger account against each field? Yes. 



15H. Do the totals of all these field accounts in 

 your ledger for any ono farm come to the same total 

 a the- actual yearly expenditure on that farm? Yes, 

 when you take the stork and that sort of thing as 

 w.-ll. 



1515. Do you make up a balance sheet in addition? 

 We bring it up pretty near. When I made my 

 address as President of the Surveyor's Institution 

 T worked it out very carefully before I put the figures 

 down. ] took it out then over 20 years, and I found 

 it was remarkably near. I will not say it is so near 

 tho last year or two, because we have not been able 

 to check things quite so much as we were able to 

 formerly. 



1516. There is one item I should like particulars of 

 how it is made up. You say in your prefix -. " As 

 regards horse labour, the total cost of keep and 

 expenditure incidental to maintaining a pair of 

 horses and tno implements nsed by them has been 



2512.1 



calculated, and a daily charge has been made for tlu> 

 use of horses according to the time of the year. The 

 scale varies from 8s. per day in the busiest time to 

 4s. per day when there is less stress of work." !.= 

 that 8s. per day per horse, or per two horses? Per 

 horse. 



1517. Can you tell me how many days in the 365- 

 day year you are calculating upon? I cannot tell 

 you the exact number of days, but I should think 

 from 220 to 240, or something of that sort. 



1518. Have you put against the various crops the 

 actual number of days that the horses have been 

 working at these crops? Yes, the actual number of 

 days the horses have been working on the field is 

 booked every week. 



1519. How do you differentiate between the busiest 

 time and the time when there is less stress? On 

 the whole there is probably a good deal more busy 

 time than when there is less stress, but 1 should say 

 that the period of less stress would probably be from 

 towards the middle of December to January and 

 February if it is a late season. 



1520. Can you tell me how much it costs to main- 

 tain a pair of horses for the year with implements? 

 I did know that, but I do not know that I can 

 tell you that to-day from memory. I had it all right 

 at one time, but I cannot say exactly now. 



1.521. My reason for asking you is because your 

 figure seems to me to be very low? I think it will 

 be higher for the future, but these figures are not 

 based on the cost to-day. This began in Michaelmas, 

 1917, and it carried on until Michaelmas, 1918. 



1522. You have not with you the details of how 

 that is arrived at? No, I am afraid I have not. 



1523. Can you get those for us, because I should 

 be very interested to see them to find out exactly the 

 number of days that you estimate a horse is working 

 in a year, and the number of days it is not working, 

 either on account of weather or illness, or Sundays 

 or half-holidays, and on other occasions, to see 

 definitely how you arrive at such a figure as you 

 have put down here? The Saturday half-holiday does 

 not affect these figures, although, of course, it will 

 affect them in the future. This estimate is for 1918, 

 and. it does not show what it will cost in 1920. 



1524. In this figure did you allow for depreciation 

 of horses and probable deaths? Yes, it is supposed 

 to allow for that it did, I think, at that time. 



1625. One general question, which I think you have 

 probably answered to some extent already. Do not 

 your 1918 figures show absolutely on the face of them 

 that your estimates for 191 9-20 "are much below what 

 they ought to be ? I think it shows they are extremely 

 moderate. You will notice that manure is very high 

 for 1918 compared with what I have put down for 

 1920. We wero compelled, all of us, to get the biggest 

 production that we -could out of our land in 1918, 

 and we put as much artificial manure on our land 

 nb we could in order to get the maximum crop. 



1520. Will you not have to continue that? Very 

 likely I shall have to do so, as my land is in such bad 

 condition. 



1527. So that for 1919-20 the cost of your manures 

 will be as high as it was in 1918? I think very likely 

 it will. 



1628. Or alternatively your production will go 

 down? I think very likely that is so because of the 

 bad state of my land at the present time. I worked 

 it out on the basis of the manures I used in 1912, 

 1913 and 1914, and the increase in price upon those. 

 Sulphate of ammonia, for example, has not gone up 

 very much. 



1529. In 1912, 1913 and 1014 there was a consider- 

 able unexhausted value in your land? Yes. 



1530. Would you say there was any in it now? 

 My land is in very bad crder now. 



1631. Instead of the land being due you anything, 

 you are due it something? Yes, that is so. 



1532. Mr. Aahby: I am sorry I did not have your 

 figures rather rarlier, but there are one or two ques- 

 tions I would like to ask you. Do T understand the 



E 2 



