KnVAL COMMI1"N ON AGRICULTURE. 



1919.] 



MR. ALBERT BDCKLC. 



8096. Qu.to so; but you hare not really gi 

 to that u between the different crops tu buc.ieu,iour 

 uot to much a* after the root < - 



i: To go back for a minute to tli. 

 question of the guarantee which you think should be 

 7O. a quarter, do you name that as l-.n_ <>nc wliu-li 

 would leave a prolit to the farmc: l tli nk u 



would encourage htm to continue the cultivation of 

 hi* land. 



&tt* But do you think that if the country is asked 

 to guarantee a 'minimum, it should be such a mini 

 mum as would in itself pay the farmer, or only one 

 which would guard him against the heavy low such 

 > liuTc was in the miictiea, and lot li in trust to 

 favourable markets in other years to make his profit !- 

 Ye*, that was my idea. Of our.*, a great deal 

 depends upon what is done. With regard to labour, 

 the cost of labour has gone up tremendously, and wo 

 get fresh orders about every few weeks. Whl 

 par ng price to-day might not be next year at this 

 time 



5039. No; but of course you realise that the coun- 

 try would not willingly guarantee a higher price than 

 it is forced to do. The point we are aiming at is, to 

 get a guarantee which would safeguard tho fanmr 

 gainst heavy loss, but not necessarily to give him a 

 profit on that individual crop, if the market price 

 over a term of 3 or 4 years was higher on the aver- 

 age. Do you think that 70s. is a sum which could be 

 supported' on those grounds? Yes, I think so if I 

 heard your question aright. 



6030. I asked you whether YOU thought that 70s. 

 in itself left a profit, or whether it was only a sum 

 which would induce the farmer to grow because he 

 would not make a heavy loss on the minimum- 1 !.. 

 not think it want* to be a maximum ; I think it 

 should be a minimum. 



5031. And you would not recommend a lower mini- 

 mum ? No, I would not. 



5033. With regard to the paragraph which Dr. 

 Douglas asked you about as to half-holidays, you 

 rather laid emphasis on the Saturday half-holiday. 

 You realise that there is nothing making the Satur- 

 day half-holiday compulsory ; it is simply a half- 

 holiday owing to the fact that the hours worked must 

 not be in excess of 6J on one day of the week, not 

 be'ng a Sunday? Yes, I am quite aware of that. 



5033. Cannot you change your milkers and give 

 them a half-holiday on one day and some on another :- 

 On the great majority of farms you have hor 



and stockmen. If you let your cowman go and a 

 horseman has to take his place on the Wednesday, a 

 horseman has to take his place or your horse is .-t.md 

 ing. That is our difficulty. 



5034. I was referring to what you said, that you 

 were depending principally upon women? Yes; that 

 is to keep the horses going. 



5035. If yon have the women, could not you change 

 them? We are rather under-staffed altogether in 

 Cleveland. That is rather the difficulty. In some 

 cases, say, you have three or four employed amongst 

 the cows. They have one half-day each some day 

 during the week. 



5036. Probably as a matter of fact the people them- 

 selves like to have it on the same day? As a matter 

 of fact, with the wages the women are now getting, 

 they do not want their half-holiday at all ; they prefer 

 not to have it; thev would rather work at overtime 

 rate. 



6037. They would rather work tho half-day? Yes. 



5038. Then with regard to the question of rearing 

 calves, Cleveland was formerly a large calf roaring 

 district in certain parts, was it not? In certain parts 



term tin- Dales; in the hilly districts. 

 1 N their |iositiiin su< h that they can now run 

 a new milk trailo ; I moan is it near enough to tho 

 markets? Yea, that U o; they are selling their milk 

 to the towns. 



5040. They are within reach? Yes. 



6041. Have you considered tho question from their 

 own point of view of profit, whether the ].i 



r pin* the profit they make on tho calv<*. would 

 or would not be great as tho profit they rimko from 

 the sale of now milk? No; they would" make nm-h 

 more on tho milk 



.. 1 wa thinking of the farms that are run by 



the farmer and his family, where tho labour would be 



in tho house. Calf rearing is a profitable mdusir. 



i much as milk selling. I 



mean, take a pound of butter at 2s. 3d. ; that, 1 

 suppose, takes about 3 gallons of milk to make ; 

 \. h< MM* in the winter we were getting 2s. 3d. a gallon 

 for the milk, and at the present time it is Is. 8d. a 

 gallon. 



6043. I suppose the price of store cattle at present 

 is very high? "Yes; but still, in niy opinion, they 

 consider they get better paid by selling the milk. 

 besides, they are given advantages ; 1 mean the 

 Imyer has railway carriage to pay. That is another 

 point which I never could get quite cleared up with 

 the Ministry of Food. Some of us, like in 



live about 7 miles out of Middlesbrough; and for the 

 convenience of the buyer, I take my milk by road, 

 whereas I could put it on rail within a mile and 

 charge the carriage to him, but I am not allowed to 

 do that. 



6044. Then, again, they get a quicker return than 

 they would from calf rearing? That is BO. 



6045. With regard to your rotation, this four- 

 course system does not seem to give very big crops. 

 You only estimate 4 quarters an acre tor oats. Is 

 there any practice in the district of extending the 

 course and letting the clover lay for two or three 

 years, and then ploughing it up again? In the Dales 

 then> is. You will see that I have a paragraph on 

 that, 



6046. Yes; I see that in the Dales; but I moan thi> 

 other land where the close cropping means a lot of 

 labour and the crops do not seem very good. If the 

 grass or the clover laid two or three years, it would be 

 a saving of labour, and I should think it would get a 



ly increased crop of oats? In many cases where 

 land is laid for a few years, there is great trouble with 

 the wiro worm. 



5047. Is there in a short time such as 2 or 3 years? 

 Yes, there is; and of course during this \\-.\v t.me wo 

 have not been allowed to leave it laying. 



6048. No; but we are looking forward to the future, 

 and a crop of 8 qrs. of oat- or a good 



of clover would be as good as two crops of 4 quarters. 

 You know better whether your land would be likely to 

 suit that? I do not think, except on tho very 

 strongest portion, it i- advisable to leave any ley 

 I have a portion myself laid for the second \ 

 wild white clover. At the present time white > 

 is almost unobtainable and at a tremendous price. 



5049. If it gives 2 quarters an acre profit afterwards 

 it pays, besides the extra grazing? I think myself 

 that is too high an estimate; I do not think you would 

 get that. 



>>. It does on some land, and more than that .- 

 You get a very poor crop the second time; you get 

 no second crop. Wo get a second crop with the 

 1 y..,i - lay. You get no second cut with the wild 

 white clover. 



'. Mow much of the 10 tons of farm yard 

 manure applied to the wheat would you carry forn an I 



tainly think a portion of that should go f< 

 to tho next crop. 



Half of it? No, not half. 

 'I no much; more than half will 1- 

 hausted:-- Yes, undoubtedly. I should say about 

 on. '-third the same as I did with the |>ota.to crop. 



6054. Then as to the root crop, you say it is not a 

 suitaMe, district for root growing!- \\V do not grow 

 l.ip root crops in Cleveland. 



It cannot be, because of the yield? But 



D exception; they arc really very Itfid. 

 I Has through a hir^e part of ( levelnnd a'- 

 ago and hail the land i.s pi at tu all\ I. air. ami ;l, 

 thin. 



.t 1 thought you said that in normal 

 I from 10 to 15 tons an acre was nil you 

 I think that is the a\orayeof Cleveland, certainly. 



II. IM- \<>u thought of Mhige- in-tead ot 

 on that land? -No. 



605W. Mi. .\nkrr Simmon*. What is 11, 

 rent in youi neighbourhood? I should .say Ir. 



