ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 



12 Augutt, 



DR. E. J. HUSSEU.. 



[Continued. 



9068. Would you put that before more scientific 

 method*? They go together. IH-. ans, unU-AS you have 

 tin- ini-rtHtMxl HirifiM-y of liilxmr you do not get your 

 itic inoihodN to work. Now varieties of crops, 

 with ln-tt*r mixture* of fertilisers, and no 1.11. dn not 

 Hiv,- their |.rop.T return unless you have On- rn.j 

 handled in the most satisfactory way both by the 

 farmer and the worker. 



90bV \\ \\ it comes to in that you have to manure 



with brains P Yes, that is so. 



* 



9070. In paragraph 4 you allude to tho increase in 

 the fX|H>nditure on labour outrunning the increased 

 rato of wages, and you deduct from that deficient y 

 in tin- standard of labour. Is that due in your opinion 

 to the war conditions we have all been through, 

 or are those conditions passing away now as you are 

 getting your men buck:- I would not say that they 

 are passing away because we still see it. I only go 

 so far as to say that I hope it will pass away. 



9071. As the regular hands get back you hope there 

 will bo ti return to the former standard of work? 

 Yes, I hope so certainly. Tho ordinary farm labourer 

 is an extremely sensible person, and 1 have no great 

 fears with regard to him at all.' 



9072. I -hope it will be so too.- We have to consider 

 the cost of production, and you have given us the 

 cost of the individual crops, but owing to the variety 

 of climate conditions and the difficulty of estimating 

 what will be the result of your labour, any crop may 

 show a loss in any particular year? Yes, that is so. 



9073. Do you think that the proper basis to go 

 upon is to try to arrive at the cost of production of 

 each individual crop? Would it not be enough to 

 consider and decide what crops and what rotation 

 suits your land, and treat tho rotation as the unit on 

 which to arrive at the cost of production, lumping 

 the four or five years together end dividing it by the 

 number of years, and treating that us the cost of 

 production, rather than taking each individual crop 

 which shows a much more temporary result up or 

 down? The advantage of taking the individual crop 

 is that you analyse your problem and you have got 

 all tho separate factors there. You can see that you 

 have expended so much on this crop, so much on that 

 crop, and so much on some other crop, and in order 

 to get the maximum financial returns you must 

 arrange the acreage proportionately so as to reduce 

 the losses. 



9074. From tho farmer's point of view, it does not 

 o much matter to him whether he gets a profit from 

 one crop one y< ar. In tho case of a particular crop 

 a particular year may happen to be a good year for 

 that crop and he may make a profit upon it, but in 

 tho case of another crop he may make a loss because 

 it does not happen to be a good season for that par- 

 ticular crop. What he is out for is to get the best 

 return over his rotation, and that seems to me to be 

 ill.- )H->I way to arrive at the true economic position 

 to take tin. rotation as the unit and not the particu- 



lar crop? The difficulty about that is that you got 

 o few people working on tho same, rotation, whereas 

 if you take 50 or CO crops you can got an average of 

 tin-in. Vou would find it very difficult to find any 

 large number of farmers who keep accounts and farm 

 on the same rotation so that they could give you an 

 average for tho rotation. 



2075. Is not the rotation the surest means of arriv 

 ing at the financial position? I prefer to build up 

 from these figures; and as a matter of fact we are 

 arriving at a rotation on the basis of these figures 

 which will bring in a better return than we are 

 getting. Any farmer could do the same if he had 

 the figures before him. 



2076. The returns will vary according to the season 

 if not according to the labour and other things. This 

 year, for example, will not be the same as last year- 

 That is so. 



2077. l>r. Doiujluf : You have told us that produc- 

 tion depends upon prices. You have also said that 

 your problem was to find which root crop caused 

 the least loss of money? Yes. 



2078. Do you conclude from that, that the deter- 

 mining factor in production is the price of the cereal 

 crop? I think the more important thing is the price 

 of the cleaning crop. 



2079. You told us that was always a loss? Yes, but 

 supposing there was a profit on that, you could dis- 

 pose of your cereal at a much less price than at 

 present, where you have to start with a dead loss. 



2080. Have you anything to say about the price of 

 the cleaning crops? Is there any possibility of deal- 

 ing with that? I am afraid it is very difficult. I 

 have tried to think out ways in which one could^-educe 

 the cost or avoid loss of money on the cleaning crop, 

 but I am afraid it is very difficult to give a general 

 estimate cost owing to the variation of method in 

 dealing with it. Some change it to meat, some to 

 fat, some to milk, and so on. There is a lack of 

 uniformity in the way of disposing of it. 



2081. Your method has always been to sell it? Yes, 

 we have always sold it ; it is the least trouble. 



2082. And also to sell your straw? Yes, tho same 

 answer applies in that case; it is tho method that 

 gives us the least trouble. We are an experimental 

 farm, you see. 



2082A. It does not give you the maximum profit? 

 That is not our main consideration. 



2083. A suggestion has been made to you that if the 

 community share in the farmer's risk, they ought also 

 to share in his profit. I suppose you will agree that 

 tho Chancellor of the Exchequer will not neglect to 

 collect Income Tax out of any increase in tho 

 farmer's profits? Yes, I think he will get hold of 

 it all right. 



(The \\'itneis withdrew.) 



