234 WHEAT PRODUCTION IN NEW ZEALAND 
The similarity noticeable in these tables is remarkable; 
but a few points of difference require explanation. 
Equally imperative is it that the basis of the calculation 
of each item should also be made clear. 
The ‘‘rent’’ of the land is in reality: first, interest on 
capital invested in improvements; secondly, the economic 
rent; and a third element springing from the scarcity 
value of the land. This ‘‘rent’’ has been’ calculated by 
taking the interest on the capital value of the land, 
interest being at 5 per cent. It will be noticed that land 
A has the highest rent, and C the lowest. 
The wages for labour are the actual amounts paid 
during the whole of the time during which labour was 
applied to the land for the specific purpose of ‘‘putting’’ 
in and harvesting the crop. The amount includes an 
estimate of the expenses incurred by the farmer in giving 
his labourers board and lodgings. 
The wages for managing are calculated on a basis of 
£3 7s. 6d. per week during the whole year, and it is 
assumed that the management necessary for the pro- 
duction of the crop is equivalent to one-fourth of the 
management necessary for the whole farm. This pro- 
portion may appear too high, but it must be remembered 
that £3 7s. 6d. per week is not a high estimate for 
managing capabilities. 
The only item of fixed capital is interest on money 
invested in machinery. The value of the implements 
used in each case was carefully calculated, the prices 
being what the farmers paid for the implements. For 
such items as harness and general equipment a liberal 
estimate was made. Thus, harness for a four-horse team 
was reckoned at £40. 
The total sum thus invested was calculated, and de- 
preciation on the whole was taken at 10 per cent. That 
is, during ten years the whole of the farmer’s stock 
is replenished. The total stock of implements thus held 
