MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



75 



12 August, 1919.] 



THE HON. EDWARD STIJUTT, C.H. 



[Continued. 



how the other set of figures! may affect the actual 

 state of the industry itself? Would you say that the 

 profits of farming before the war were unreasonable? 



1787. I do not know; we have no figures? I know 

 you have not, but you have the general opinion that 

 no one wanted a farm much, did they ? 



1788. As a member of the Commission I am anxious 

 for information which will guide mo on that point? 

 If you will wait until I have finished this 

 year you shall have it. 



1789. The Government cannot wait until then. I 

 take it you agree, as a general proposition, that the 

 value of one set of figures cannot be accepted as 

 satisfactory unless the figures on the other side are 

 available also? In a general way of a prospectus 

 you would say so, but in the case of farming everyone 

 knows that farmers were not making big profits be- 

 fore the war, and these are the expenses at the present 

 day. 



1790. You say that better organisation is needed 

 in the industry. Do you think that the industry- 

 would be helped by a better system of transport? 

 I am rather afraid that the transport is going to be 

 more expensive to us in the future instead of less ; 

 it looks to me as if the railway rates are going to 

 be higher. Motor transport or light railways might 

 help us. 



1791. My point was rather as to whether the exist- 

 ing facilities for transport are as good as they might 

 be from the point of view of the industry? No, I do 

 not think they are. 



1792. Some improvement in that direction might 

 help? Yes. 



1793. The Chairman: You said you would recom- 

 mend that the Government should give a guarantee 

 for not less than 8 years? Yes. 



1794. Had you any particular basis in your mind 

 for putting it at 8 years? Yes. I would say 8 \.MI- 

 beca'use it would allow for a sort of two-course period 

 in farming. I do not, of course, say that 8 years is 

 the only possible thing that would do, but I think to 

 make things reasonably safe you ought to make it 8 

 years. 



179o. Three or four years would not be sulficient 

 in your opinion? No, I do not think that would be 

 sufficient, although of course it would he better 

 than nothing at all. 



1796. Would you think that farmers would keep 

 their land in cultivation if they were guaranteed a 

 minimum price for 3 or 4 years from now? Thrco 

 VHI-S is the period taken in the Corn Production Act, 

 is it not? 



1707. I am putting .'t nr : i<> you as an 



experienced gentleman, and I should like to hear 

 what your opinion is with regard to that period? 

 At the time of the Corn Production Act it was sug- 

 gested that certainly 2 years before the end of the 

 period they would give the farmers notice if they did 

 not intend to continue it. That was the idea which 

 was brought forward at the time, so that farmers 

 should have ample notice with regard to it. Speaking 

 for myself I do not think 3 or 4 years would be 

 sufficient. It would help to a certain extent, but I 

 think it ought to be longer. 



1798. Looking at your table showing the cost of 

 production of wheat, I observe you have an item for 

 horse cultivation. Does that include implements? 

 Yes, all the 'implements the horses use. 



1799. No other implements? No, it does not in- 

 clude any other implements. 



1800. There may be other implements used in your 

 particular farm that ought to come in as part of the 

 cost. Is that so? I should think there might be one 



or two implements, such as a dressing machine, which^ 

 has not been put in. 



1801. Do you employ steam at all? Yes, but that 

 would be charged for under the steam ploughing. 



1802. So that this table includes practically all the 

 costs? Yes; as I say, there might be a little tt, lie 

 added, but it would not be anything verv big. 



1803. You say you do not charge anything for 

 manures produced on the farm, as it is a more or less 

 constant quantity? It is more or less a constant 

 quantity. 



1S04. It is, in fact, debited in this account, is it not? 

 No, it is not, because supposing there was more used 

 one year there would be a debit, and supposing there 

 was less used another year there would be a credit 

 Supposing it was 1,000 one year and 1,200 the next 

 the 200 would be a credit, and if it was only 800 

 there would be a debit. 



1805. I am not quite sure whether by that means you 

 get a proper cost account? On the growing of wheat 

 per acre the manure is charged. I thought you were 

 talking about the whole of these accounts. 



1806. No; I am referring to your account with re- 

 gaed to the 1918 wheat crop on 285A acres? The 

 manure in that account is charged at 5s.~a load. 



1807. What do you credit in that account to the 

 horses and what to the cows? I credit some of it to 

 the cows and I credit a little bit for the straw I 

 pay for a certain amount of straw and take into 

 account the expense of fallowing, which I do not allow 

 for in rotation. 



1808. Do you consider that this estimated cost takes 

 everything into account that ought to be taken into 

 account in wheat growing? I think it fairly takes 

 everything into account except, as I say, it is too low 



ither. It does not take draining in, for example 

 We did no draining in 1918. We have to drain our 

 land at intervals, but we did not do any draining in 

 1918, and the land therefore is getting wetter. 



1809. Something ought to be put in for the reserved 

 expenditure to keep your land absolutely up to proper 

 condition? Yes. 



1810. How much would that be? Not very much 



5s. an acre, not more. 



1811. If we were to add 5s. an acre for that, this is 

 a fair statement in your judgment of what the cost 

 would be of growing wheat on good land? No, I do 

 not say to-day ; I am speaking of 1918. 



1812. For the year 1918 this represents a fair state- 

 ment of cost, subject to adding 5s. an acre for drain- 

 ing, of what the cost was of growing wheat on good 

 land? Except one thing. I told you that the thresh- 

 ing was not enough. We fixed the price of threshing 

 very early in the season in September, 1917 and wo 

 found it was costing a great deal more than we ex- 

 pected. I should put on another Es. in respect of that. 



1813. That is 10s. an acre that has to bo added to 

 your statement of cost ? Yes. 



1814. You have already said that your expenditure 

 on hand labour was unduly large? It was. 



1816. Can you say what wofiild be a fair representa- 

 tive cost of that, and would that involve deducting 

 anything? I do not think that it will cost so much 

 this year. 



1816. The answer to my question is that, adding the 

 10s. you have spoken of on to the cost, it brings up 

 the cost to 13 16s. 9d. per acre, to which you have 

 to add superintendence, 10s., and interest on capital, 

 15s. an acre? Yes. 



1817. Making a total of 15 Is. 9d. per acre? Yes. 



1818. That is the position? Yea 



(The Witness withdrew.) 



