4678. You would have to impose a very heavy charge?—No. Our sheds have cost a fraction over 2d., and they have residual value of about 40 per cent. That means that something over 1d. per bushel will have to be debited up against the wheat in those sheds. If we used silos we would have that penny to start with and then probably we could make an extra charge on account of its being better storage than provided in the sheds.

4679. How would you have that penny?—It costs 1d. per bushel whenever wheat goes into the shed. If we were to erect the silo we would be saving 1d. a bushel by not erecting sheds.

4680. Even if silos had been erected in time for the 1916-17 harvest, you still would have had to erect sheds?—Yes.

4681. So you would save only a portion for one shed?—It would be for as long as you had wheat in the silos.

4682. But owing to the heavy cost of erection the interest, sinking fund and depreciation will be much heavier than in the case of sheds?—Yes.

4683. And if the wheat stays there a few years they will eat up the value of the wheat altogether?—Quite so, but if the wheat be left in the sheds for a few years, the weevil will entirely eat up the wheat.

4684. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: Mr. Pearse said it had been found that a 40,000 bushel bin was best suited to this State. You say it will be necessary to have a spare bin with each group. You would not suggest that there should be a proportion of one or two full bins and one empty bin of so great a capacity? To deal with the weevil it would be necessary to take wheat from one bin to another unless it could be shifted from the bottom to the top.

4685. You have never known of that being done?—No, but Dr. Duval told me that in America they combat the weevil by taking the wheat from one bin, cleaning it and putting it into another. I repeated this to Carter, whereupon I rather fancy he said something which led me to believe that the wheat could be treated without having a spare bin.

4686. You would be mixing the clean wheat with the other wheat?—If you got a small cleaning apparatus, and ran the wheat through it, it would be possible to put the wheat back practically free from weevil.

4687. Would not the weevil fly upwards if disturbed, and would not some of the weevil stick to the sides?—Weevils have wings but I do not know that they fly.

4688. There is a possibility of their flying upwards and mixing with the new wheat coming in?—There is a possibility.

4689. Concrete storage bins could be constructed so that they would ultimately be used, if necessary, in a bulk handling scheme?—That is so.

4690. How many places in this State would carry country elevators of a capacity of three full bins of 40,000 bushels each under the bulk handling scheme?—There would not be many. There would be places where one bin could be erected and other places where two or three could be erected.

4691. It would necessary to have one bin for reconditioning purposes?—The difficulty might be overcome by running any weevilly wheat down to a central point. There would have to be empty storage capacity somewhere.

4692. You realise that if these bins are not built of this large capacity the cost would be greater per bushel than it would otherwise be?—Yes. If six bins of 20,000 bushels capacity were built, the cost per bushel would naturally be greater than if three bins of 40,000 bushels capacity were built.

4693. To deal with the weevil pest, we must have silos erected of at least a three-bin capacity, so that one of these can be empty?—One spare bin is necessary.

4694. There is only a limited number of places in the State where that silo capacity, with large bins, could be established?—At present that is so.

4695. There are very few places in the country in the Eastern States where they have bins of up to 100,000 bushels?—They have some big wheat receiving centres there.

4696. They do not propose to erect bins under the silo system for 100,000 bushels in the country districts?—Probably not.

4697. By the CHAIRMAN: Unless these extra bins are provided, the weevil cannot be cleaned out?—If the weevils get into a silo it is necessary to remove the wheat. It is not use leaving the wheat there.

4698. By Mr. HARRISON: How many places have you where there are over 30,000 bags of wheat at present?—I think between 40 and 40 places.

4699. If you have 50 such places, you are providing for storage at the centres to be used three times in every 12 months?—Under normal conditions, but not under our present conditions.

4700. If they were built you could store a third of each centre's product for the year, and two-thirds would have to go to the depots?—Yes.

4701. Would the saving be as real as the possible in the country imagine?—I do not think they would make any great thing out of it at present.

4702. You said we were not charging anything for stacking sites this year?—The Railway Department are not. They are charging us for the sites on which the 1916-17 wheat is stored, but are not charging us for the 1917-18 stacking sites.

4703. Is the British Government giving any assistance to Australia for the care of this wheat?—They are paying us 3d. per quarter per month, or three-eighths of a penny per bushel per month.

4704. Does it make any difference where the wheat is stored?—No.

4705. Have you done into prices with Mr. Pearse as to the cost of bulk storage?—No.

4706. Technical matters are left to him?—Yes.

4707. By the CHAIRMAN: Is it not possible to weatherboard the sheds?—We could do so, but we would have to do it on some sort of a system allowing of proper ventilation.

4708. Mr. Pearse said the reason that could not be done was that you wanted to get round the stack in order to get at the wheat?—That is ventilation.

4709. At North Fremantle you are keeping the flour in the shed a certain distance away from the wall?—It is supposed to be stacked a certain distance from the wall.

4710. Could not the same thing apply to the wheat?—If you stack your wheat a certain distance in, you lose such a lot of valuable storage space.

4711. But you would not keep the wheat very far away from the wall?—At present we have wheat touching the posts, and they are seven-inch posts. That is seven inches we are losing at the present time.

4712. Protection against weather would be almost certain once the boards were put in?—Yes; but then we should have a pretty heavy risk of fire.

4713. More so than with curtains?—Curtains may catch fire more easily than timber does, but curtains can easily be pulled down.

4714. You think curtains are sufficient protection if properly put up?—Quite.

4715. A suggestion has been thrown out that if wood were used you could stack up tight and put loose wheat in between the wall and the bags and in between the bags, and so stop rates and weevil from working?—It would stop all their air passages, and if we got leakages we would have musty wheat.

4716. You do not think that system would work?—I should not care to experiment with it. Anyhow, one could not close out all the air that it would be necessary to close out in order to stop weevil from working. For that, one would need to have the place practically air-tight.

4717. As regards roofs, I notice that the big wool sheds are being constructed are to be roofed with malthoid?—Yes, or rubberoid. I do not know what the first cost would be, but some time back and I went into the question on behalf of Dreyus & Co., and I came into the conclusion that if we got galvanised iron even as high as £85 it would pay us better than putting malthoid strips, which have no break-up value. The only way to make use of malthoid later on would be to put it on frames, and the frames cost more than the malthoid.

4718. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: But malthoid is put on the solid timber?—£It is put in strips on the timber, and it will be necessary later to strip the malthoid off.

4719. But there will be the residual value of the timber?—Yes.