the stacks we should be able to save that cost. With regard to the extra cost of railage and handling of wheat stacked at depots instead of country sidings, I would point out that the extra rail freight incurred through railing from country sidings to depots, and then railing from depots to ports, as against railing from the country siding direct to the port, is, as per special arrangements with the Railway Department, 2s. 6d. per ton. If we calculate 12 bags of wheat as equal to a ton, the extra rail freight equals 2½d. per bag. In regard to extra handling at sidings, the rates now paid for services at the sidings are ½d. per bushel where the wheat is trucked direct, and 1d. per bushel where the wheat is temporarily stacked and then trucked. With wheat temporarily stacked, a maximum height of 15 bags is a fair thing; but if the wheat was being stacked in sheds at the country sidings, it would necessitate careful stacking, and to a height of, say, from 25 down to 20 bags. The local agents would want extra remuneration for this work, and we could safely say that they would ask at least ¾d. per bushel for the work of receiving, weighing, stacking, etc. If the work was done for ¾d. per bushel, it would be ¼d. per bushel cheaper than the present rate of temporary stacking and trucking. Therefore, the extra ¼d. represents the amount that would be saved if the wheat was stacked in sheds at the siding instead of being railed away. This extra ¼d. per bushel would equal, say, ¾d. per bag. Depot stacking .— It costs the Scheme approximately ½d. per bushel for their depot services of stacking, tallying, sampling, hanging curtains, etc. This, of course, would be saved if the wheat were not railed to the depot. The ½d. per bushel equals 1½d. per bag. The total cost, therefore, of the extra railage incurred and the double handling involved is 4¾d. per bag (2½d. plus ¾d. plus 1½d.). Against the extra cost involved there are certain items to be recovered as a set-off. We can reasonably calculate that when loading up from the depots we would be able to do this work ⅝d. per bag cheaper than when loading up from isolated country sidings. Also, the cost of caretaking at country sidings for 12 months would be, say, ½d. per bushel (this is the rate the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., ask for caretaking at depots), whereas the cost of caretaking at depots would certainly not exceed ⅛d. per bushel. The saving on caretaking, therefore, is ⅜d. per bushel, or say 1⅛d. per bag. The total saving would be 1¾d. (⅝d. plus 1⅛d.). Taking the total saving from the extra cost, it leaves 3d. per bag, or say 1d. per bushel against the depot. There are other savings that it is rather difficult to work out on a "per bag" basis to be allowed for; for instance, our depot cost includes the cost of hanging screens. This would have to be paid specially for at country sidings. On account of the small sheds at the country sidings, the number of screens as compared with the depots would certainly be double. The cost of erection of smaller sheds at country sidings would be much greater than the large sheds at the depots. The extra railage on material (iron, timber, etc.) would be greater than the railage to the depot. At country sidings mouse-proof fencing would need to be erected immediately (mice are fairly bad at some country sidings now), whereas at the depots this work need only be done if required. The cost of inspection, etc., would be greater if the wheat was being put into sheds at the sidings. Depots would be necessary to receive the wheat from the smaller sidings, and the overall costs of the depots would be much greater if a small quantity of wheat was stacked there. The above figures for extra handling at depots and sidings are based on every bag being double handled, whereas a large portion of the wheat would be trucked direct. On the wheat trucked direct from the country sidings there would be a saving of ¾d. per bag, instead of a debit of ¾d. per bag shown above. In the event of stacking becoming infected with weevil, it would be more easily controlled at the depot, as it could be more closely watched, and any weevil spots could be immediately cut out. Further, if it was necessary on account of weevil troubles to treat the wheat mechanically, this could only be done at the depots. There would also be extra costs at country sidings in building up the sites. The items set out immediately above in favour of the depots on which no saving in cost has been specified, should certainly equal the 3d. per bag shown above as the extra cost of railage and handling. Therefore, it is apparently just as cheap to handle the wheat through the depots as through sheds at country sidings.

7147. In regard to the handling of the wheat, one of the principal factors is that the wheat shall be kept dry? — Reasonably dry.

7148. As dry as you can possibly get it? — We do not like wheat to get wet, but it always gets wet in the field, to a certain extent, with the summer rains. I do not know that that damages the wheat from the merchantable point of view, unless the rain is very prolonged.

7149. But last year a quantity of wheat got wet in the stacks? — Yes, and the year before that, and the year before that.

7150. But we must try to improve on the past? — Last year, we had rain early in March. The only way of saving that would have been to have a shed at the siding. But then, again, there are hundreds of thousands of bags lying out in the fields, and those bags will get wet. If the wheat that is in the shed is worth more on account of being kept dry, then the wheat in the field should be worth less on account of being wet.

7151. Your instruction on that point is that wheat, if it gets wet, is to be stood on end for the wind to get round it so that it may dry? — The farmers will not go round their fields putting the wheat on timber. Some careful farmers do it, but they are very few.

7152. By Mr. HARRISON: Is it not true that if the farmers left his wet sacks in the field, they would be eaten by white ants in a few days? — I understand there are some places in the country where white ants are bad.

7153. By the CHAIRMAN: A very large quantity of wheat has been damaged in transit by water? — That is so. One has to bring the wheat down some time or other, and if there is wet weather when one is bringing the wheat down it will get damaged.

7154. But is not the damage caused, to a large extent, by the wheat getting wet in transit and then being immediately put in the stack? — I think most of the damage is caused by the failure to get the trucks along promptly. The wheat gets wet in the trucks, and there is no chance to get it out so that it may dry.

7155. But it is found that a lot of wheat comes to the siding in bad condition through wet and then is stacked before it is fully dry? — I will not say it should not be stacked before it is thoroughly dry. If it is reasonably dry, it can be stacked.

7156. There is evidence of that at Spencer's Brook, where wheat was supposed to have been stacked wet, and where there is stuff growing all round the bags? — That might have been caused by the wheat getting wet after being stacked.

7157. It might have been. If the wheat is kept at the sidings until it is required for shipment, would it not the better for the Scheme to have it there dry? — One cannot ship wheat wet. It has to come down some time or other, and much the better course for us is to regulate it from Spencer's Brook than from the different sidings. The risk would be greater if the wheat were brought from the country sidings.

7158. You have at present 556,328 bags of the 1916-17 wheat held at 32 sidings in the country. The sidings seem to have been considered sufficient for that quantity of wheat? — Those bags are more or less weevily, and they all got more or less wet before they were roofed. Some of the stacks had six inches of rain on them before they were roofed. The rain was too early. You cannot roof wheat before you get it in; further, you have to get the stack a certain height before you can roof it.

7159. If a shed had been there with a roof on it, would that have saved the wheat from the wet? — Yes.

7160. Is not that an argument in favour of having a shed constructed in advance? — If you are going to keep wheat in the country for any length of time, there is not the slightest doubt you should have a roof over it.

7161. Do you not think those sheds would be useful afterwards for the farmers to use? Would not you have an opportunity of selling those sheds to the Railway Department; not to the co-operative societies? — We might be able to sell them, but I have my doubts. The Railway Department are not likely to buy anything they do not particularly want. Again, the Rail-