Wheat (1) - Part 4

Image 319
image 20 of 50

This transcription is complete

wagon loads , which included 152,810,383 bushels of wheat. The revenue was nearly 60,000 dollars and the disbursements were about 4,000 dollars more. It is the intention of the law that the service shall be self-sustaining. The department has also removed from the field a notorious class of men known as grain thieves. Only 81 errors were made in weighing 259,996 cars of grain , and 6,000,000 bushels of grain have been weighed with an average shortage of only 540 pounds per car.

It seems to me that at places where weighbridges are available we should be permitted to use weighbridges.

6593. By the CHAIRMAN : It has always been the practice in Westralian Australia to weigh the bag singly has it not ?— At those old established places where weighbridges are available it has not been so. Grass Valley is a case in point.

6594. But you accepted wheat for two years under the Scheme . What was your practice then ? — To accept weighbridges where they were available conditionally on the farmers agreeing. They like the weighbridges because they get their drays unloaded more quickly.

6595. When you submitted your tender for handling the wheat you took into consideration that the weighbridges would be used ? — At the places where we formerly used them yes. But we had in view that the savings, if any which would be effected would accrue to the farmer.

6596. But you complained about action which was taken last year. If you contract to do a certain thing, you would not expect the Scheme to relieve you of that work ? — Our contract was to weigh. We contend that in weighing over the weighbridges we adopted the most modern method of weighing. 6597. But the person letting the contract should be the person to decide the method of weighing ? — Where nothing was specially provided the custom previously prevailing should obtain . I am also of opinion that stacking in skeleton shed at siding would be preferable to the depot system. I think that on handling charges alone there would be a saving of 2½d per bag. That is to say. one could afford to lose 2¼d. per bag by handling via skeleton shed at siding and that method would still be as cheap as the depot method without at all reckoning the re-bagging costs entailed last season through weather , damage , etc. and other savings that can be effected.

6598. Do you think it would be possible to clear the ground at those sites from weevil ? Is the matter properly attended to ? — I think it would be possible on many sites now that the 1916-17 wheat has been cleaned up , and the ground has had a winter's exposure to sun and rain. With very little preparation , I consider the ground could be made free of weevil.

6599. Were any sites used for storing 1917-18 wheat which had been used for the previous years wheat after that wheat had been removed from them ? — Yes.

6600. If any weevil were on the ground then , it would go into the new stacks? — Yes. We , however took the precaution of disinfecting any such sites.

6601. I shall come to that directly. For this harvest, if the same system was adopted, the sites on which you stacked wheat last year would in all probability be used? — Yes; but last year the conditions were different, because at many sidings the 1916-17 wheat remained right up to the receiving time, whereas now many of the sidings have been cleaned and have had a winter's exposure to sun and rain, so that with very little work they could be made clear of weevil.

6602. In other words better conditions prevail this year than last year? — In the majority of cases.

6603. By using disinfectant or some such method as proposed by Professor Lefroy, the sites could be made good for putting sheds on.? — Yes. I am of opinion that at many sidings no disinfecting at all would be necessary. The majority of the sidings would be clear of weevil.

6604. There would be no danger in putting skeleton sheds at the majority of the sidings? — I would advocate caution where there are at present old weevily stacks. At other sidings, which have been clear for some time, there would be little danger.

6605. Would not the same danger be incurred in putting new sheds at the present depôts when each depôt has weevil? — That is one of my reasons for suggesting that the skeleton shed is worth consideration.

6606. You would recommend it? — Yes.

6607. By Mr. HARRISON: Have you particulars of that saving of 2¼d. per bag that you spoke of? — On the present basis one has to pay for handling the wheat into stack at country siding and out of stack at country siding, into stack at depôt and out of stack at depôt. That compromises four handlings. Then there is handling ex truck at ship side— five handlings in all. Under the skeleton shed system there is one handling into the shed, and the wheat is not handled again until it is sent to a mill or ship's side. I value that at 2¼d., which could be saved in handling alone.

6608. By the CHAIRMAN: At each of those large centres there are men who are qualified to care for the wheat once it is put in the skeleton sheds?— Do you mean at the sidings or at the depôts?

6609. At the sidings?— Yes.

6610. There would be no difficulty as regards the Government making arrangements for some person in the district to have the care-taking of the sheds?— At very small outlying sidings, where no one is living within miles, I would not advocate building skeleton sheds.

6611. Say a siding where 20,000 bags would be accepted. There would be some settlement around that siding?— As a general rule , yes.

6612. You do not think there would be any difficulty in having a local man to look after the sheds in such places as that? — I do not.

6613. Arrangements could be made by the acquiring agent to have a man there to look after it?— Yes.

6614. Even if the Scheme took the responsibility for the wheat and paid for caretaking only?— I do not think there would be any difficulty at all. I would advise that the co-operative organisation be utilised. If this scheme were adopted provision should be made to have screens on the job so that each section as received could be screened. It would be necessary also to provide for sampling into and out of all skeleton sheds. The custom of the trade is to sample into and not out of the country stack. If the wheat were there for a couple of years and you wanted to ship it after that period, free from weevil, it should be sampled on going out. I mean of course at country sidings.

6615. Could you suggest any scheme whereby a check could be made of the sample into the shed?— The acquiring agent should be held responsible for the sample for the sample and he should put up money as a guarantee.

6616. We have had experience of that for two years whereby the acquiring agent has taken on the responsibility, but the conditions have been such that there has been no opportunity to check?— We know now the conditions and we know where the responsibilities have been evaded. All this could be provided for and the acquiring agent could be made responsible for the sample.

6617. By Mr. HARRISON: Would you make him comply with the conditions so long as the wheat remained there?— You could make him put up his money as a guarantee that he would out-turn the wheat of equal qualify. I would also advocate that in future contracts for the handling of wheat, re-bagging should be part of the acquiring agent's contract, and not an extra as it has been this year. That would of course be very much reduced under the skeleton shed plan and it would save two handlings of bags.

6618. By Mr. BROWN: Those handlings ruin the bag because of the speed at which the handling is done. No care is taken?— That is so. If Mr. Keys contends handling at depôts is cheaper, it is for him to prove that by handling at the depôt he can save double handling costs and to prove also that the wheat sustains no damage in transit. In May of this year stacks were opening up rather badly and we were in telephonic communication with the Scheme. On the 5th June we addressed the following letter to the manager of the Scheme:—

Re trucking ex stack: We now beg to quote wire received from our representative at Corrigin, contents of which we telephoned you yesterday— "Kunjin refuses to load more wheat unless guaranteed extra for re-bagging: Cannot load more than 480 per day instead of 1,000." As pointed out to you in our telephonic communication, having regard to the provisions of our agreement, under which we are not responsible for re-bagging or re-conditioning, we wired our representative to continue loading, and to keep careful record of the additional time spent in re-bagging. Account for costs in this connection will be debited to you when the work is completed. Naturally costs will be kept to lowest minimum. We may say that we have had to make similar arrangements at other centres in order to keep up the movement of the wheat from country sidings to the depôts.

The Scheme were not always as frank with us as they might have been. This is an instance. There are complaints now that we were not as careful in re-bagging as we ought to have been, but the letter which I have read remains unanswered to this day. If they had come along and said, "keep your costs down and we will pay you reasonable expenses, so go ahead," we would have known where we were. But the position has been that we have had to incur re-bagging costs in the recoupment of which there is a certain amount of dubiety. We have had in mind our experience of the 1915-16 season during which we were delayed