Revision Difference

Wheat (1) - Part 1

Image 59

Revision as of 06:56:53, May 17, 2018
Edited by 101.0.82.66
Revision as of 07:15:44, May 17, 2018
Edited by 101.0.82.66
Line 30: Line 30:
 
1398.  When did that chiefly occur?—In the cleaning up of the 1916-17 harvest. Even this year's wheat gave us a good deal of loss.
 
1398.  When did that chiefly occur?—In the cleaning up of the 1916-17 harvest. Even this year's wheat gave us a good deal of loss.
 
1399.  Would you have any demand for such wheat in your own centre?—Very little, but at some other centres there is a food deal of demand.
 
1399.  Would you have any demand for such wheat in your own centre?—Very little, but at some other centres there is a food deal of demand.
1400.  By the CHAIRMAN: You had a good deal of waste in the 1916-17 harvest?—We really had no waste, because not wheat was left lying there, but a good deal of wheat was sweepings and second-rate, the result of leaky bags, of mice, and of weevil.
+
1400.  By the CHAIRMAN: You had a good deal of waste in the 1916-17 harvest?—We really had no waste, because no wheat was left lying there, but a good deal of wheat was sweepings and second-rate, the result of leaky bags, of mice, and of weevil.
 
1401.  You had to provide the floors for that wheat in 1916-17?—Yes.
 
1401.  You had to provide the floors for that wheat in 1916-17?—Yes.
 
1402.  Therefore, there could not have been proper floors provided to enable the wheat to be properly bagged again?—We had the best of floors, sleepers throughout.  
 
1402.  Therefore, there could not have been proper floors provided to enable the wheat to be properly bagged again?—We had the best of floors, sleepers throughout.  

Revision as of 07:15:44, May 17, 2018

1369. By Mr HARRISON: Have there been any complaints in your centre about favouritism?—No. The only man who got harshly dealt with was the chairman, and he suffered a fair amount of docking. 1370. Are your members satisfied with the present method of dockage?—No. 1371. What is your idea with regard to the present system of dockage?—We are certainly dissatisfied with the system instituted by the Scheme; we are of opinion it was not sufficiently uniform. We have one grievance in regard to dockage, and it was that wheat docked up to 6d. went into the ordinary stack. We were of the opinion that we were not too fairly dealt with. 1372. Have your shareholders considered what might be a fairer method of dockage?—Many have gone into that question, but I am not in a position to let you know the result. 1373. Do you believe in dockage at all?—Unless we had a market for the inferior wheat we could not approach it, but if the market had been clear and the Scheme was in the position to accept or reject wheat and give is the right to put the rejected wheat on the market, I would say we would favour it. 1374. The docked wheat brings down the average of the wheat which is above f.a.q. standard or near it. Do you think that all wheat accepted would be better taken at one price?—I do not think so. 1375. Then you believe in dockage?—Personally I do, because it tends to educate the man to raise the right type of wheat. 1376. If it were not for dockage the chances are that farmers would not keep up their standard of wheat?—I admit that, but I contend that the system of dockage introduced last year was not altogether fair. It was too severe, and it was not uniform. 1377. Do you think that the dockage here was higher than in the Eastern States?—Yes. 1378. And you contend that the West Australian wheat was better than that of the Eastern States?—Yes, and it should be sold separately. 1379. Have you heard of any complaints at unattended sidings near where you are. With one man only operating, has there been any difficulty or negligence, or people having to wait?—I do not know of any such cases. 1380. Has your company more than one siding to attend to?—No. 1381. Have any of your sidings been flooded, or has the water reached the stacks?—I do not know of any. 1382. Would you favour building wooden silos at the various country centres, to become part of the ultimate scheme of bulk handling?—Yes. 1383. Even though the cost of material at present would be very high, with a consequent enhancement of interest for using the silos?—Yes. 1384. You feel that in the cost of the bags the farmer loses more than is represented by the increased cost of material for the building of bins?—Undoubtedly. 1385. You think it would be preferable for your society to become guarantors for the expenditure of public money?—Yes. 1386. Of course if the buildings were on Government ground you would be subject to the payment of rent, even after you had acquired the ownership of the silos or bins?—I have gone thoroughly into the question of the building of silos and I am of the opinion that it would be in the best interest of the farmers if those silos could be built. 1387. Do you think that by building thons bins the Government would have less security than they have under the present?—No, the State would be better secured. 1388. With only one sub-agent at a siding, are we likely to have wheat of a lower quality than previously?—No. When competitive agents were operating, if one refused to take a farmer's wheat as f.a.q., that farmer could always get some other agent to give him a f.a.q. ticket. 1389. How do the dockages of the sub-agents compare with those of the Scheme at the depots?—Generally speaking they are about the same. 1390. Then you are not likely to suffer by lower dockages at your own centre?—I do not think so. 1391. You do not suffer for lack of expert ability in receiving wheat?—Not at all. 1392. Do you think you suffer by the weighing of wheat?—We have no weighbridge at our centre. 1393. Could not the wheat be handled at a lower cost if you had bulk handling?—Yes, and more expeditiously. 1394. Do you think that, under the present method, the draw of the scale is equal to a pound per bag?—If it were only that we would not be challenging it. 1395. How often do you think Government scales ought to be tested?—At least several times during the scaling season. 1396. Perhaps every day?—That would be better. 1397. Have you had much loss in your centre through pick-up wheat?—Yes. 1398. When did that chiefly occur?—In the cleaning up of the 1916-17 harvest. Even this year's wheat gave us a good deal of loss. 1399. Would you have any demand for such wheat in your own centre?—Very little, but at some other centres there is a food deal of demand. 1400. By the CHAIRMAN: You had a good deal of waste in the 1916-17 harvest?—We really had no waste, because no wheat was left lying there, but a good deal of wheat was sweepings and second-rate, the result of leaky bags, of mice, and of weevil. 1401. You had to provide the floors for that wheat in 1916-17?—Yes. 1402. Therefore, there could not have been proper floors provided to enable the wheat to be properly bagged again?—We had the best of floors, sleepers throughout. 1403. The Government provide the floors this year?—Yes, using the very sleepers that we brought there. 1404. And they are paying for the use of them as dunnage?—I shall inquire into that. We paid 4d. per piece for the hire of those sleepers for the season. 1405. By Mr BROWN : They still remain the property of the Railway Department?—I suppose so. 1406. By the CHAIRMAN : You say that wheat with a dockage on it went into the stack as f.a.q.?—Up to a certain margin, 6d., I think. 1407. When you acquired this wheat you acquired it as agents of the Westralian Farmers, Ltd.?—Yes. 1408. You were of opinion that the wheat was not f.a.q.?—That is so. 1409. If the wheat you purchased was not f.a.q., and nevertheless was put into your stacks as f.a.q., was it not to the benefit of the Westralian Farmers, Ltd.?—I do not think so. Those dockages were arranged, or sanctioned, by the Pool. 1410. Is it not to the advantage of the Westralian Farmers, Ltd., to have as much f.a.q. wheat as possible to deliver to the depot?—I do not see that it is, except, perhaps, the indirectly they are thereby protecting the interests of the farmers who contributed the wheat. 1411. Would not they be protecting themselves in respect of any agent who might have acquired wheat below the standard?—I do not think so, because every bag is dealt with on its merits. The acquiring agent samples the bag when it comes off the farmer's wagon to go into the stack. Later, when it is removed from the stack and arrives at the Government Receiving Depot, it is there dealt with by a representative of the Scheme, and the result of that dockage comes back to the company who acquired the wheat. If they docked adequately in the first place, they thereby save themselves. 1412. You are aware that only a running sample is taken at the depot?—I am not. They isolate a few bags in each truck. 1413. But a running sample id taken?—I was not aware of it. 1414. Consequently, there is a possibility of some of the lower than f.a.q. wheat to be run in?—I am afraid that you will find the dockage has been rather more than justifiably severe. 1415. If the Westralian Farmers, through negligence, had lost a certain amount of wheat and they can put it in as f.a.q., is that to their benefit?—I do not think generally it is to their benefit, because they are a farmers' company. 1416.In reply to Mr Harrison, you said that you had gone into the system of bulk handling and that anything was better than the present cost of the system of bags?—Yes.