PRICE OF FARMING IMPLEMENTS.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 15871, 10 April 1917, Page 4

PRICE OF FARMING IMPLEMENTS.

TO THE EDITOR OF "THE rRKSS Sir—l had no idea Mr Norland "was comparing the present priccs of implements with ol' -*0 to 30 years ago. Up till the war commenced, enough wheat was grown for the Dominion's requirements, with a surplus for export —in the vears IVIO9. an^ about one and a quarter million bushels. In 1912 the export ot wheat, was oOo.OCkj bushels, and of oats 4. L_.j..lf bu<hcls The prices of wheat during those years. I should say from memory, fluctuated from 3 5 io -Is <xl a iv.ishcl. The rise in pricc s oi implentcnts anU other thing>. thoretore.. had not, tut l c jr> affected the growing oi either wheat or Oius. -Mr Morland't, letter. [ fathered went to show that it tho Government v-antetl enough wheat sown Jor local reqiiirenients, they should offer a sufficient price and guarantee to take all frown. 1 aaree with him. and have thought all along that the rirst offer of the wheat grower.*, 3d at country stations, is, under all tho circumstances. a very fair one. . No doubt the cost or growing wheat lias about doubled during the Inst *-'0 years, but the rise in the prices ot implement* has had little effect, that it seems to me almost absurd to mention it as one of the factors. At the worst, and taking the case of a. nian purchasing a complete outfit of new implements, as I showed in my last lctt«r. it only runs into a fraction ot a penny a bushel. , • • i The main reaxm for tile rise Hi tilo cost of wheat is the rise in the value ot land during the last, fifteen years, due to the increar>od prices for beef, mutton, wool, and dairy produce .1 ho farmers of the late 'sixties and early 'seventies of last century—before the Winder came in—reckoned in their tune wheat did not pav if it fell below Tho plain lands of Canterbury were in those days worth from £3 to i'o per acre. The same quality land is now fetching from £t<> £3l>. Mr Morlauci's prices of P. and I>. Duncan's ploughs of 20 years ago are quite correct: the three-furrow I quoted in niv lirst letter was. however, a riding Tii'ougli. a pattern we were not making* 20 years ago, and to get a proper comparison it is necessary to take, the nresent price of i'. three-fuv-row walking plough, which is £-11 instead of £41 10s. Mr Morland's statement in his original letter was that "Farni_ implements of all descriptions arc up oO to 70 per cent." In replying, T think L was perfectly fair in taking the seven essential implements required in .wheatgrowing and striking an average. The following are the catalogue prices of 1893 and 191": — Ccf.. 1535. March. 1017. .C <1. £ *. d. D.F. T'louph .. 1G 10 0 20 0 0 Thr«Murro\>.' walking Plough .. 22 10 n 11 0 0 !W: Disc Harrows .. 11 d f 21 10 0 1-leaf Tine Harrows .■> 1.) " 0 10 0 !)ft x '.Win BolVr .. 10 1"> 0 31 0 t; 13 Coulter Combined Drill .. 12 (i 0 r.3 .i fAxle Dray .. 10 0 o 31 0 <) £•131". HI 0 X2-'io j 0 Difference, £03 ].V>. Til 1593 railage, however, had to be paid by the purchaser on all lines but two. * Now the ma.mifaciuror pays freight aiul railage to any station in the Dominion on the lot. Mr Morland will no doubt agree that the actual cost to the farmer at his station is tho proper test, and I estimate that on the seven implements the extra average railage wc now pay will be at least £10 15s; deducting this from the difference wo get a riso of £8-3 on tho seven implements in 22 years —60.8 per cent. T have to thank Mr Morland for his testimonial to tho quality of P. and D. Duncan's implements. I have known Mr Morland for 3-j years, and always found him a fair and reasonable man, unlike some prominent members of the Farmers' Union who have been dealing with this matter.

If some of the implement makers ought to'be shot for putting up their prices. I daresay I am as guilty as any of them, but if I have to die I -want to die for the truih, namely, GO.B per cent, in 22 years and 31.3*2 per cent- sincc the beginning of the war. The advances in implements—every penny of which is fully justified—are duo to rises in wages, in material, in selling costs, in freights and railage, both on raw materials and on the finished goods, in rates, taxes, and general expenses, and these rises are no more under the control of the implement makers than the advanced cost of wheat-growing is Tinder that of the farmer. —Yours, etc., J. KILIR. April 7th, 1917. TO Trrß EDITOtt OF "TirK PRBSS." Sir, —As an interested reader of the wheat question, and rise in price of farm implements, 1 lia.ve read with much interest Mr Morland's letter, also Mr J. Keir's, of P. and D. Ptmcan Companv, replying to it. I agree with Mr Gallagher that it would l>e out of the question for a farmer putting in 200 acres of wheat with a 13-coultar drill and four-leaf sot ot harrows. Mr Tveir is onlv trviiijx to jict u Qiiict little "ad." through' the paper. Then he is misleading the farmeis by saying the price of his 13-coultcr drill is £58 ss, when his own price list reads £62 10s, hut bv quoting the 13-coulter drill price he reduces the percentages of the seven imolcments he mentioned. Mr MorlanJ is quit? right with his ."50 to 70 oer cent, rise in t'nrm implements. Mr Ke'r says if the increased costs of the implements were spread over ten years it would only run into three-tenths of a. penny p. bushel. 1 wonder would he spread tli<> payments of his implements over ten years — Yours, etc., AY. T. .TOM'S. Rnkaia, April 7th. to i'ht: r.niTOK or "Tin: press." Sir. —T noticc in your columns this morning that Mr Keir attempted to reply to Mr Gallagher's letter by sayin"- he was not i'i earnest- about the seven implements mentioned in hie first letter, as he did not intend it to be a hard and fast list of what a farmer would need for growing 200 acres of wheat. It, would liavc been better if Mr Keir had lol't hi? se-on<] letter out of the paper, for it is easily soon that, he is now trying to further guil us farmers. bv saving the rise in price of implements could only :ii"e-t ihe new miin starting, who would have a full s-t to nurelia-e. Whatever Mr Keir sa v<i to the eontra'-v, we know qint c well that farm implements have taken n bi<-- rise in nrice. and 1 do not think there anything to warrant it when vou take into r the prices of the imported art^e.-Ymn^^rr... Tbikaia. April Pth.