MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



81 



2 September, 1919.] 



MR. CASTELL WREY. 



[Continued. 



7613. You would expect it to have shown a larger 

 profit if it had been in a better condition to start 

 with ? Certainly. 



7614. Mr. Langford: I think you told us when 

 you were here last that you had sold out a lot of 

 pedigree cattle? Yes. 



7615. Does that account for the abnormal receipts 

 for cattle in the year 1918-19 7,579? Did that 

 amount go to make up your profits of that year? Yes. 



7616. If you had not had a sale of pedigree atock 

 there would have been no profits from any other 

 branch of your farming, would there? Yes, there 

 would. 



7617. Can you tell us what was the average price 

 of the cattle sold at that sale? No, I am afraid I 

 cannot from memory. 



7618. My point is that if you had not had a very 

 good sale of pedigree cattle in that year your 

 accounts would show a loss instead of a profit. At 

 any rate your purchases of cattle in that year appear 

 to be 637 los., and you sold cattle to the amount 

 of 7,579 Os. 5d., so that your sales were nearly 

 7,000 in excess of your purchases that year? Yes. 



7619. I take it that amount would go into your 

 profits? Yes. 



7620. The profits for that year were 2,918 7s 9d ? 

 Yes. 



7621. So that it would appear you would have 

 made a loss on that year of something like 4,000 

 if you had not had this abnormal sale of cattlp? 



7622. Chairman: You had b->tt^r lir carof I that you 

 are dealing with th<> snme figures. The valuation 

 at the beginning of that year 1918-19 was 31,651 

 and the valuation at that end of the year was 31,426 

 after having sold out the cattle. Looking at those 

 figures do you still say that the profit of 2,918 7sl. 9d. 

 arose only from the sale of cattle? I cannot say only. 



7623. Mr. Langford: I submit to you that if you 

 had not had this sale of pedigree cattle your loss 

 for the year 1918-19 would have been approximately 

 4,000? I am afraid I do not agree. 



7624. Mr. Prosier Jones: I think you told us 

 last time you were here that you believe in farms 

 of rather a large area from an economical point of 

 view ? Yes. 



7625. Was it 1,000 acres you told us? No, 10,000 

 acres. 



7626. Assuming you employ three men to the 100 

 acres and that the object of the Board of Agriculture 

 is to get more men back to the land, if these 10,000 

 acres were cut up into farms of 100 acres each, pro- 

 viding for a family of five, would not that give us 

 an addition of two men per 100 acres more on the 

 land? Yes, but you started the question by saying 

 that the Board of Agriculture wanted more men on 

 th land. You do not say what for. If the Board 

 of Agriculture want increased production I say they 

 would be more likely to get it from 10,000 acre 

 farms than from 100 acre farms. 



7627. Would not the 10,000 acre farm mean that 

 there would be fewer people living on the land? 

 Yes, you might have fewer, but you would have more 

 production. 



7628. Do results go to prove that large farms pro- 

 duce more than small farms? There are so few large 

 farms in England that you can make no comparison 

 really. 



7629. Mr. J. M. Henderson: Your profit is made 

 largely on cattle, is it not? On general farming of 

 all sorts. 



7630. You do a lot of cattle raising? Yes, but we 

 raise a lot of sheep, too, and horses and pigs. 



7631. Your principal profit is derived from that? 

 I can hardly say. I should think there is more profit 

 in stock than there is in cereals. 



7632. Have you ever tested which is the more profit- 

 able to you? No, I have not. . 



7633. I see in one year you have got a very largo 

 amount for cattle? It varies with the acreage; the 

 area is a good deal bigger some years than others. 



7634. Can yon tell me by how much the acreage 

 under wheat has been increased since or by reason of 

 the guarantee? There has been no increase at all 

 owing to the guarantee. There has been an increase 

 of arable land owing to the Food Production Com- 

 mittees compelling us to break up more land. 



25329 



7635. That has been the only effect? Yes. 



7636. Has your experience of that broken up land 

 been that it has produced four quarters to the acre 

 as an average of wheat? Not on my own farm, but 

 I have seen some good crops, and also some complete 

 failures. 



7637. What is the average? It is impossible to say. 

 I only run one district in Northamptonshire. 



7638. In your district in Northamptonshire what 

 should you say has been the result of breaking up 

 land as regards the actual return per quarter of 

 wheat? That is a very difficult question, but I should 

 think 2J quarters of wheat would be very near the 

 mark. 



7639. 2J quarters of wheat per acre according to the 

 figures before us could never pay for production? 

 No, I do not think it would. 



7640. It requires about four quarters to pay accord- 

 ing to the evidence before us? Yes, I should think 

 that would be so, taking the average. 



7641. A great deal of the land that has produced 

 wheat has produced it at a loss? A great deal, no 

 doubt. 



7642. Mr. Green: Did the County Committee 

 compel you to break up any of your farm? Yes, 258 

 acres. 



7643. Out of the 2,700? No, a good deal of it was 

 arable before. 



7644. Do you think the net output per man would 

 have been greater on a large farm like yours if you 

 had instituted some system of co-partnership? I do 

 not think during war time it would have been. 



7645. Do you think it might now if you give the 

 men some financial interest in the farm yourself? 

 I am very much in favour of that sort of thing, 

 although I have never seen a scheme yet which I could 

 work to. Of course, under present day conditions 

 where we have women and German prisoners em- 

 ployed, and labour is so unsettled, any proposition 

 of taking the workers into co-partnership would 

 never work, especially as so many of the women are 

 giving up agriculture and going back to other 

 occupations. 



7646. From your experience on a large farm such 

 ns yours, do you find that young fellows returning 

 from the Army are more inclined to work in gangs 

 than they would be inclined to work in isolated small 

 holdings? I have never been in the privileged 

 position of having a gang of men since the war, so I 

 cannot answer that. I wish I was in such a position. 



7647. Mr. Edwards : I should like to know whether 

 these returns which are very interesting and require 

 some study refer to one farm worked from a com- 

 mon centre or whether they really refer to a 

 large number of farms in which the results have been 

 added together? No, it is all one large farm. I have 

 a plan of it here if you would care to see it. (Handing 

 plan.) 



7648. Is it all within a ring fence? Yes. 



7649. You appear before us with these figures, and 

 you give it as your opinion that large farms are more 

 economical and likely to produce more for the nation 

 than comparatively small ones? Yes, I do. 



7650. Could you tell us what is the tendency in the 

 United States of America in regard to the area of 

 their farms? No, I cannot. 



7651. The impression on the whole given from the 

 figures which you "have brought before us in reference 

 to your farm, which I presume is one of the largest 

 in England, is not a very encouraging one, is it? No, 

 I do not think it is. 



7652. It is neither encouraging so far as the profit 

 is concerned, nor so far as the produce per acre is 

 concerned? No, I do not think it is. 



7653. Still, you say large farms is the remedy for 

 the present state of affairs with regard to agriculture 

 in this country? Yes, I think they are. 



7654. Your produce per acre comes to a very IOTT 

 one compared with the average of the country, doc* 

 it not? The 3 quarters to the acre, do you meanP 



7656. Yes? Yes, it is lower than the average. 



V 2 



