A word about some exporting countries that are not included in the above table, 

 and which it is estimated may export an additional 18 million bushels, making the 

 above total of estimated exports 604 million. Russia, which exported in 1913-14, 

 173,000,000 bushels, only exported 1,120,000 in 1914-15. Via the port of Archangel 

 since the 1st of August, 1915, to the 12th of February she had exported 3,472,000 bushels 

 and by the 1st of August, 1916, Broomhall expects her to send out by that route in 

 all about 8,000,000 bushels. Broomhall estimates that for the current year North 

 Africa, Persia, and Chili may be able to spare about 8,000,000 bushels., but only 2,000,000 

 bushels are expected from India where in two of the great wheat producing provinces, 

 drought has been so persistent it is feared the coming Indian harvest in March will 

 not yield more than sufficient for home consumption. Still she had contributed to 

 the world's exports 26,000,000 bushels out of her 1914 crop and 23,000,000 bushels 

 out of her crop of 1915. 



It therefore devolves almost exclusively upon the four great producing countries 

 mentioned in the above table to supply the world's requirements during the current 

 grain year. These countries, after satisfying the demands upon them for export, had 

 remaining for home consumption in 1913 a total of 821,000,000 bushels; in 1914 the 

 total remaining was only 757,000,000. It will be seen from the estimated distribution 

 of the 1915 crop that it is expected 992,000,000 bushels will remain for home bread 

 requirements. That these quantities will be needed to replenish depleted reserves 

 canno^ be doubted. If the remaining supplies for 1914 and 1915 were evenly divided 

 between these two years there would be for each year 875,000,000 bushels without 

 making any deduction from the Argentina and Australian crops on account of unreli- 

 able wheat. And this amount is not excessive, especially in times like the present 

 when the occurrence of crop failures would be disastrous in the absence of abundant 

 home reserves. 



Bathgate & Co. recently made an observation which is worthy of attention and 

 that is, that in times of scarcity, crop reports, official and otherwise, are inclined to 

 pessimism, while in times of abundance there is a tendency to exaggerate in the opposite 

 direction. Too little attention is generally paid to crop damage of the nature of that 

 of last year to the winter wheat crop of the United States. Damage of various kinds 

 to a more or less extent affects the milling value of a considerable proportion of every 

 crop and that proportion is not to be ignored in a crop of such size as Canada harvested 

 in 1915. The final analysis of the disposal of such a crop always discloses considerable 

 quantities that cannot stand the milling test. We have, therefore, as indicated above, 

 reduced the Canadian total by about 10% to meet that condition, and the damage of 

 unknown extent that is recognized to have, for instance, seriously affected some of the 

 Ontario wheat and a larger quantity of Western wheat. Much of this is still in the 

 shock, having gone into the winter wet, and in its frozen state must await favourable 

 spring weather before it can be threshed. A further and perhaps larger quantity 

 having been threshed and piled in the fields with an insufficient srraw covering, will 

 be exposed to serious damage in the spring. 



In order to apply a further test to the data used in the above table, we present the 

 following analysis of the disposition of the United States and Canadian crops using for 

 that purpose chiefly the data furnished by Mr. Broomhall and our own Census and 

 Statistics Office. 





165 



