Wheat (1) - Part 3

Image 258
image 59 of 100

This transcription is complete

5184. Did you have any complaints from the farmers as to the way the wheat was stacked at the sidings?—No, I was not out at the sidings. I heard several people say that it was bad at different places. It is evident from some of the wheat that comes in that it has been on the ground and in the water.

5185. You said that all wheat shipped to South Africa is certified to by a departmental officer?—Practically all of it. I know of several cargoes that had to be certified to. That was one reason why we got the South African trade; the Eastern States declining to certify.

5186. You referred to the 200 odd trucks coming to the wharf in so bad a condition that it had to be stacked on end to drain. That is the usual method of drying wheat, is it not?—Yes.

5187. It is usual to stack them on end with pieces of wood between them to provide a current of air?—No. such thing was done in this case.

5188. You say this lot was in a shocking state and that eventually the wheat was put into "E" shed?—Some of it certainly went over there.

5189. Some of it was in a very rotten condition?—Fearful. Mr. Stirling Taylor said to me, "Is not that a shame; the hand of Providence." I did not agree that it was the hand of Providence.

5190. Was this wheat delayed on the railways?—It must have been. It is one of the things that an experienced man would avoid by declining to handle large parcels of wheat in June.

5191. Was it not possible that the wheat got wet in transit?—If they give orders to their agents in the country to load up trucks and send them along in so wet a month, the stuff is almost certain to get wet. I think the idea was to save stacking by putting it from the trucks into the ship. That is a correct thing to do in dry weather but not in June.

5192. But you knew they did not have the stacking to do at Fremantle?—The Harbour Trust does the stacking.

5193. But they would avoid stacking the wheat in the country?—Yes, and would obviate the stacking charges made by the Harbour Trust.

5194. Those charges would be made against the Scheme. You do not think the Westralian Farmers sent the wheat to Fremantle as they did in order to save the expense of roofing, etc., in their contract?—They are sufficiently business like to take advantage of anything of the sort.

5195. Would you be surprised to learn that a few weeks ago I saw at Fremantle 18 trucks of wheat, which had been there 14 days on the railways and was soaked with rain?—I have here wheat from Ajana which was nearly a month in transit. One truck was of premium wheat, but the goats ate the label off the railway truck and this lot was put off at Isseka, while firewood was taken on in its place.

5196. So it is possible that the Westralian Farmers are not to blame for those 200 trucks being sent in as they were?—It is just possible.

5197. Will wheat in stack at Geraldton keep as well as anywhere else?—I cannot say, but it will certainly keep as well here as at Fremantle.

5198. Considering the time the stacks have been here, what do you think of the condition of the wheat in them?—In regard to the Westralian Farmers' stacks, I think there is a loss by weevil slightly in excess of 10 per cent. Probably over the whole of the wheat yield here it would be 20 per cent., but in this I am counting a stack of Dalgety's, which was practically the refuse of the shipment. That is 1916-17 wheat.

5199. Do you base that on the wheat left in stack or on the total wheat acquired here?—The wheat in stack at the end of the 1916-17 season.

5200. What do you consider the percentage loss on all the 1916-17 wheat delivered at Geraldton?—That is difficult because I have not the figures of the acquirements during 1916-17, at which time I was engaged with the Westralian Farmers only, but since the 1st January I have had control of all the stacks.

5201. Would you agree with Mr. Keys that the total loss from weevil on all wheat acquired in the State would average from three to five per cent.?—I am not in a position to say; I can only surmise.

5202. Judging from the wheat in which the stack near the jetty has opened up, you think it is in pretty good condition right through?—Yes, very fair, but still it is affected to a slight extent.

5203. A person walking round those stacks would be liable to form a wrong opinion of the condition of the wheat in the stack?—Yes indeed.

5204. What is your opinion of Bluff Point as a stacking site?—It is almost an ideal spot for convenience, if only we had more air under the stacks.

5205. It would be better if another layer of joists were provided?—Yes. The soil there is very porous, allowing the water to get away.

5206. You see no reason why that large shed there should not be used for next season's wheat, if the floor were raised a bit?—I consider it could be used for next season's wheat. I would disinfect the end where the weevilly wheat is.

5207. Could you not send away those few bags and use some stuff to get over the difficulty?—Yes. I am advising that those infected bags be got rid of.

5208. You think the Scheme would be acting wrongly in not using the present site for stacking further wheat next year?—Undoubtedly. We have the shed and all appliances while the disadvantages we started with have all been overcome.

5209. You do not think the other stack in which the weevil is would affect the new wheat?—It is bound to affect it, but I think myself the weevil get into the stack from the ground, except when they are brought into the stack.

5210. Do you think that the harvesting of the wheat a little too soon would have a tendency to make it weevily?—If the crop is harvested green, I think it would. If there be a ripe bag with weevil and a green bag without weevil, the weevil will go from the ripe bag to the green bag.

5211. Do you think it possible that those bags in the sheds were gathered too green and developed weevil more quickly on account of that?—I think the infection was in those bags, although Mr. Newman has assured me that such a thing is impossible.

5212. By Mr. HARRISON: Have you been farming at all?—Thank heaven, no.

5213. Do you know that it is not possible to harvest wheat with the present machinery unless the wheat is dry?—We have many instances of wheat having been cut before it is ripe.

5214. By the CHAIRMAN: Do you find the wheat coming in damp and in a bad condition this year?—No; we got all that wheat in the shed dry.

5215. And you had no trouble with the Westralian Farmers' sub-agents in regard to getting your wheat?—No. It has not been my province to have trouble with them. I am impersonal in the valuation and docking.

5216. The wheat is being sent in to you in good condition?—Yes. Yet the very fact of my having to dock and to reject shows that they must have docked their people as I have done. If so, it is all right.

5217. We have had evidence from the manager that there is very little difference in the docking?—Then it shows that the sub-agents have done good work.

5218. By Hon. J. F. ALLEN: You have no means of checking your docking against that of the sub-agents?—No.

5219. By Mr. BROWN: Have you had experience of silos?—No.

5220. When did the first wheat come into the depot this year? —On 8th January.

5221. So wheat was available for stacking before you were ready to receive it?—No, we were ready a week before any was available but there was some little hitch.

5222. Is all the wheat in this area now in the depot?—Odd trucks are still coming in.

5223. Are you putting those into the depot now?—No. I am putting them into the mill because they have been stored in the barns and so are more likely to be infected. Moreover, it does not pay me to take men out to the depot for one truck.

5224. Then the mill is milling 1917-18 wheat?—A little.

5225. Has that been by instructions from Mr. Keys?—Yes.

5226. By Hon. R. G. ARDAGH: Then the wheat coming in now is being dumped into the mill to curtail expense?—And to obviate the introduction of weevil to a further extent.