ROYAI. COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 



160r//*r, I'.M'J 



V.IM:. Mi X .. ST*WA*T, 1>.\\ IM.-.IV. Mi LAKKN. 



which were not general to potato growers. Thou then- 

 is the 7 Os. Id. and tlio 7 '2*.. that i 3 .mt <>t 1 :. 

 ^ .>u have several at fi>. one at L' I !'-. !M , 

 mill .mi. ..t L3 17- I'd : 



14,890. They range up and down. . \en after you 

 hav taken out the uxtreiue cae, b-t.. n LI and 

 - 



14,831. That still leave* a very largo margin of 

 error f It doe*. 



IJ.--.rj. So that even after \ou have eliminated all 

 cues in which you show on inv.-sim.it ion a reason 

 I.. i .Intimation you would still need, would you not, 

 . Imp niiiniicr of cases of accounts before you 

 could get rid of that margin of cii.'i ! a certain 

 t-xu-nt yea, provided that the conditions were the 



i l.-i'l. Do you not think that the difference in the 

 conditions can only bo discounted by including n very 

 large number ? There is no other method. 



ll.-'JI. S.i that to dimply with the r> quircmenta of 

 a .statist loin n you would really need an enormous 

 number of account*? I agree. 



14,825. Mr. Stewart, there is one small matter I 

 want to ask you about. You say the land suffered 

 through hay and straw being taken by the military. 

 You are an are, I think, that there WHS a pledge given 

 that no hay or straw would be taken which a man 

 found necessary for maintaining his own stock)* (Mr. 

 Stevart): YOB. 



}'.-*>. Was that pledge not li >n .; .-d - Yes, but a 

 good deal of the hay was commandeered for Govern- 

 ment purposes. 



14.827. Yes, but it was understood, was it not, that 

 no hay was to be commandeered except surplus hay, 

 that is to say, what a man did not require for his own 

 use. Was that observed? Generally it has been. 



14.828. Do you think there have been cases in which 

 hay and straw were t;ik. n which a man said ho w -islied 

 to retain for his own use? Not generally. 



14.829. So that that would not be a general can-,- 

 -No. 



14,830-1. I fupposc other factors were adverse to 

 cattle feeding? Yes, cattle feeding was one of the 

 most speculative branches of our farming business. 

 It sometimes gave high profits during the 

 war and at other times not. In MIMIC of theee years 

 the cost of the store animal was out of all proportion 

 to what we were getting for the fat animal, so that 

 the feeding of cattle was not a paying proposition. 

 It paid us better, therefore, to let the Government 

 have that hay and straw. These farmers I refer to 

 aro not in the habit of consuming all the hay and 

 straw grown on tno farms in the particular district 

 to which I refer. 



14,832. Mr. McN'icol, I think you answered some 

 questions about the position of vour I'nion in rela- 

 tion to guarantees. Has your Union ever officially 

 asked for any guarantees on cereal crops I mean as 

 a policy? (.V. I): Yes, in n modified form. 



14,883. Is there any resolution to that effect? Yes 



14,834. When was that? I could not give you the 

 date. 



14,836. It was comparatively recently, was it not 

 it was not before the siil.je. t had I ..... n brought before 

 you? I be^ your pardon. 1 am wrong; I do not think 

 we had a resolution on the sub]. 



14,836. That was my impression. Yon have never 

 really asked fur this'-' No, we have not. 



''. Should 1 bo right in saying that when the 

 v of a guarantee was first suggested tin- opinion 

 of Scottish farmers was adverse t<i jt - \ :; ,><,.l many 

 of them v 



14,838. Nothing wan done to welcome it or 

 irage it in 1917. when it was first put before vou '- 



14.K39. Am I right in saying that you do not put 

 it forward that farmers are entitled in the londiut 

 of their hmincM if they are left alone to have any 

 kind of helper subsidy from the State. You do not 

 i-lnim any advantage over nth.-r industries in thnl 



n.- do not 



14,S|fl Do, \oiir present support of the policy of 

 ise from the fact thnt it hss been 'put 

 i| publicly bv (he GeviTiin.-iii that (her, 

 i.e.-.! of increased ccre.,1 ptodurf inn? Yi-. that is our 

 reason. 



II. -II. Your position is simply that you come here 

 U'ing invited to say that a guarantee of some sort in 

 nec*ssar\ it that result is to l>e brought about ^ 



I 1 - i'J \ '.HI do not put it to us that the tanning 

 industry has any claim to special consideration. You 

 merely put it that if th country nce.U a . ertain 

 supply of cereals produced it must give . ouliden 

 the industry producing these things? Yes, that is 

 the idea. 



14,84.'). That is your position quite clearly ? Yes. 



ll.HII. Mi. l.i n mi ill : There are .me or t \\ o .pies 

 (ions 1 should like, to rusk M M< Nicol. layout ti 

 do you take the oats consumed by the horses at their 

 cost of production or at market price in estimating 

 your costs? (Mr .Vr.Yi'rnCi : I cannot say definitely 

 in every case, In-cause these are average costs over 

 several farms given by individual farmers. 



14.845. I am referring to your own costs? No, I 

 did not take the exact cost of production ; I took it at 

 slightly over the cost. 



14.846. This is an estimate, too? These are esti- 

 mates, too. They are average estimates over several 

 farms in the I.othians. I cannot really speak to what 

 the details of these costs are. 



14.847. They are based upon costs submitted to you 

 by other people? Yes, including my own. 



14,81$. And you do not quite know ns to horse 

 labour? No, I never definitely asked for the estimate 

 as to that. 



14.849. Do you know whether anything was included 

 by way of wages of management by the farmer? 

 There aro no costs included for management by the 

 farmer himself. The management shown there is 

 money or perquisites paid to a grieve or steward or 

 foreman taking charge. 



14.850. Did these costs include the rent of the farm- 

 Louse, spread over the acreage of the farm? I famy 

 that is so. 



14.851. By a quarter of wheat in your evidence-in- 

 chief you mean 504 imperial Ibs., do you not? Yes. 



14.852. I notice that your average cost of wheat 

 production is 16 5s. and your yield 5| quarters of 

 504 His. ? Yes. 



14.853. So that a minimum price of 60s. per quarter 

 of 480 Ibs., which is the same as 63s. per quarter of 



Ibs., would brin- in 16 18s. 7$d. ? Yes. 

 14.&54. A profit of 13s. 7Jd. an acre for the wheat? 

 Yes. 



14.855. By a quarter of oats you mean, do you not, 

 .tin imperial Ibs. ? Yes. 



14.856. In regard to oats, I see your average cost 

 is 13 8s. 5d. and your yield six quarters an acre? 



14.857. A minimum price of 38s. 6d. a quarter of 



312 His., which is the guaranteed price that was fixed 

 for oats when the guarantee was 60s. for wheat, and 

 vhich is equivalent, I think, to just over 41s. 5}d. 

 MI quarter of 336 Ibs., would bring in 12 8s. 9d. 

 per acre with a yield ot six quarters. That is a loss 

 of 19s. 8d. an acre? Yes. 



14.858. So that these figures of yours indicate, do 

 they not, that the guaranteed prices fixed for 1917 

 by the Corn Production Act would on your 1918 costs 

 give you a profit on your wheat, but a loss on your 

 oats:- That is the case. 



The ratio between the prices for these 

 cereals as fixed by the Corn 1'mduct ion Act tor 1917 

 is inoro favourable to the production of wheat than 

 t i the production of oats? Yea on our land. 



ll.-ifiO. I follow. Do you think that this would 

 also hold good of other parts of Scotland outride \<>m 

 diftri. V. 0,ir land is very suitable for wheat 



growing. It is good loam, and ne have a dry, MIIIII\ 

 limato. Wo can grow wheat to better advantage, 

 therefore. The I.othians are. I consider, the Itesl 

 wheat land in Scotland. Against that, we are in a 

 rtrj dr\ climate, and oaU need more moist lire, and 

 owing to our shortage of moisture we cannot grow 



advantage. Thai !s the only h 



for thai. 



1 I -<>OA. Can you give me your opinion a, to the 

 ratio between the Ivo prices fixed in the Corn 

 Production \. I Do vou consider thnt flint Pfttid 



