258 QUEENSLAND AGRICULTURAL JOURNAL. [1 Arrtn, 1899. 
The ‘average returns per acre, then, are—Tor South Australia, 5°6 bushels } 
for Queensland, 15°43 bushels. 
From this it would appear either that the South Australian farmer i8 
working at a dead loss or that the Queensland farmer is in a most enviable 
position. 
We must, however, take into consideration the cost of production. 
The Dakota farmer abovementioned has realised sufficient probably from 
his harvest to about pay the cost of production, but he is his own labourer ; 
therefore he is satisfied that he has made farm labourer’s wages. But would 
a South Australian or Queensland farmer feel that he was on the highway to 
prosperity if he only made as much as he could have earned by going out as a 
day labourer? Scarcely. Then it behoves us to elucidate how the South 
Australian can live comfortably on an average yield of between 5 and 6 bushels, 
and the Queenslander on 15 to 16 bushels, whilst the Dakota man only makes 
bare wages. 
To get at the bottom of this anomaly, we have to consider the cost of 
production, the cost of labour, and of living. The Dakota farmer puts in and 
takes off his crop at a cost of 12s. 5d. per acre, but he has other expenses 
which will probably bring his debit account up to 18s. As he only receives 
12s. 6d. for his 6 bushels of wheat, he is working at an actual loss of 6d. per 
acre, but, throwing his own labour into the scale, he says he is making wages. 
What about the Queensland and New South Wales farmer? We present 
another table showing the cost of production in those colonies. We do not 
give these figures as absolutely correct, but merely as a fair approximation of 
the cost :— 
Sx. aa 
Ploughing, Sowing, Cost of Harvesting, R “ Price 
= Seer from ite to Total Cost. Yield. per Bushel. 
ae #. = _ se _ pom 
fp tif, 8s. d. Santa Bushels, 8. od. 
1894... Peale 8 2 5 11 14 1 118 2 0 
WGEY ry aie 7 6 OmeL Ib Vp |, 1% 4 0 
1896 Genes reset 1D} (ij sy 4) 18 3 10. 44} 
1897 a Gt it” ¥¢ 6 5 VRS efN © 11% 3.7 
Averages ... 15 9 2 o 10} 3 6 
Net return, £1 0s. 1d. per acre. 
Thus we see that a yield of 6 bushels per acre in Dakota only clears the 
cost, if evenit does that, of one man’s wages, whilst in New South Wales a 
return of little over 10 bushels will give a net profit of £1 Os. 1d., whence we 
may deduce the corollary that a return of 5 bushels in South Australia, where 
the most approved labour-saving appliances are in use, a profit of more than 
half that amount will result. A man planting 300 acres of wheat will have 
over £300 to his credit for his crop in the south. But the Queensland farmer 
possesses the advantage of clearing this profit on his wheat, and then of getting 
a similar return for the maize subsequently sown on the same land. 
Mr. P. Hagenbach, a wheat-grower at Warwick, in his paper on “ Wheat- 
growing on the Darling Downs,” read before the Agricultural and Pastoral 
Conference held at Rockhampton on 11th, 12th, and 13th May, 1898, said the 
profit on wheat-growing, after paying every possible expense, amounted to £2 
‘a ie per acre, reckoning an average return of 20 bushels of wheat at 4s. per 
ushel. 
We have said enough to show that wheat-growing is a most profitable 
occupation in Queensland, even reckoning the cost of producing and marketing 
to be over £2 peracre. In South Australia the methods of cultivation make 
the expenses far lighter; but, after all, the returns ean barely pay more than 
the actual labour of the farmer and his family. 
