MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



23 September, 1919.] 



MR. JAMES WYLLIE. 



[Continued. 



11.796. Mr. Green: I suppose you are here to-day 

 on behalf of the National Farmers' Union to answer 

 questions with regard to costs and balance sheets? 

 Yes ; with regard to costs only. 



11.797. Only costs. You are not empowered to 

 answer any question with regard to policy? No, not 

 at all. 



11.798. You have in paragraph 7 : ' : ' C ' detailed 

 statements of cost of production." What we should 

 like to know is whether these are real costs or esti- 

 mated costs? In answer to that, I* would like to 

 point out that in the introductory statement it is 

 stated that farmers were approached to put forward 

 statements of costs of production either from their 

 records or by a process of estimation. I might say 

 that, as you are perfectly well aware, there are only a 

 very small number of farmers in this country who 

 ha vi.' been keeping actual records from time to time 

 of costs of production ; and further, that if we had 

 limited our investigation simply to those farmers, 

 we would not have been able to get much informa- 

 tion. We were absolutely forced to fall back upon 

 a process of estimation, BO that the statements are 

 partly based upon actual records and partly upon 

 estimates. 



11.799. What proportion are actual records, and 

 what proportion are estimates? The majority cer- 

 tainly are estimates. I would not like to say just 

 off-hand what proportion it is ; but I think you will 

 find in going through the detailed statements that 

 wherever the statements aro based upon actual re- 

 cords that is stated. 



11.800. Are any of these statements made from 

 field operations; that is, field costs' time put down 

 on the labour sheet, and so on? Yes, in certain cases 

 they are. 



11.801. What is the proportion out of the lot? 

 As I say, I would not like to say off-hand ; but a small 

 proportion. 



11.802. A very small proportion? Yes; I would 

 even say a very small proportion. 



11.803. Then, are you prepared to answer any ques- 

 tions with regard to I do not know whether you call 

 these costs or balance sheets? Yes, I call them costs. 



11.804. For instance, there is the statement with 

 regard to sheep, Appendix IV, Part B (/) There is 

 an extraordinary deficit in all these accounts on 

 sheep, is there not? I think you have used thi> 

 proper word, " extraordinary " : I admit they are 

 extraordinary. 



1 1,805. Were these particular farms selected in any 

 way? No, they were not 



11.806. I see they are mainly pertaining to the 

 southern counties, Hants, Wilts, and Dorset? Might 

 I say that in the course of my investigations I have 

 discovered that there is a very strong feeling in the 

 southern counties of England that arable sheep farm- 

 ing is very unprofitable, and these particular cases 

 were submitted with a view to substantiating the 

 farmers' opinion with regard to the profitableness of 

 arable sheep farming. 



11.807. So that there is a kind of special pleading 

 on these accounts about sheep ; that is to say, to prove 

 the farmers' point about arable sheep farming on 

 these particular farms? I would not like to put it 

 that way. The farmers have a certain opinion; but 

 there has been no attempt whatsoever at putting 

 forward figures simply to prove that opinion. 



11,80.". Did you examine all these accounts very 

 carefully'' In each of these cases I did. 



11.809. I suppose the losses are, more or less, esti- 

 mated? You will notice I do not call these losses; 

 I call these really deficits, and, as I have explained 

 in a note in one of these cases, it is very diffi- 

 cult to say exactly what is the loss attaching to 

 sheep farming on such farms, because of the difficulty 

 of saying exactly what proportion of the cost of 

 growing roots should be charged against the sheep, 

 and what proportion should be charged against the 

 following corn and other crops. 



11.810. Turn to the Sheep Account No. 3, on Farm 

 10, (A pp. TV. Part C), this one, which has the large 

 deficit of 2,272. This land is in Hants. Is not this 

 an extraordinary amount to charge for aftermath, 

 C'i l">s. per acre, 391 10s. ? I am quite prepared to 



admit that that seems to he a high figure to put upon 

 aftermath. It was so high that I asked the farmer a 

 special question on that particular point. His answer 

 was that he calculated it on the basis of about 15 

 cwts. of hay as a second cut. He valued that 15 

 cwts. of hay at the market price. 



11.811. Was he a tenant-farmer? I could not say. 



11.812. He did not have to pay this as rent or 

 anything like that? No, it is not rent. You will 

 find that that is rather an exceptional case ; it is 

 the only case in which the aftermath has been esti- 

 mated in that particular way. But you can quite 

 well understand that to a certain extent I have to 

 put forward the farmers' own particular opinions. In 

 many cases I have been able to get them to modify 

 their opinions in accordance with what I thought 

 was right. 



11.813. In this particular case you did not get the 

 farmer to modify this amount? In this particular 

 case he thought that that was the fair way to take it. 



11.814. It seems to me rather a case of estimating 

 profits on hay and then charging it against the sheep. 

 I see in several of these accounts you have charged 

 7s. 6d. per acre for hedging and ditching. Do you 

 not think that is a very large proportion to charge 

 against the cost of production? In certain cases I 

 consider, from the information which has been put 

 before me, that it is not a bit too high. 



11.815. Do you think the farmers really expended 

 that amount on hedging and ditching? In certain 

 cases I have no hesitation in saying that 'they did. 



1 1 .<16. Take the case of the owner of a 300 acre 

 farm, that would mean his spending over 100 a 

 year on hedging and ditching? In certain districts 

 they do it and in others they do not. I think in 

 certain cases, if you look through the accounts, you 

 will find that nothing like 7s. 6d. an acre has been 

 charged. 



11/817. I know, of course, that the hedges and 

 ditches are in a very bad condition at the present 

 time, and I suggest to you that they have not been 

 spending that amount of money upon them, and, 

 therefore, that it must be an estimate? I agree it 

 has been estimated. 



11.818. Mr. Thomas Henderson: There is a point 

 in the examination of Mr. Donaldson that I would 

 like your view upon. He gave it as his opinion that 

 about 40 per cent, of the expenditure in farming 

 was due to the cost of labour, and he referred us 

 to you for details. First of all, do you agree with 

 that estimate of his? I cannot say at the present 

 stage exactly whether 40 per cent, would be a fair 

 proportion to charge for labour or not, taking the 

 farms as a whole. All I am prepared to say is that 

 what may be in Mr. Donaldson's mind I cannot say, 

 but what may have been in his mind was that in these 

 analyses of costs, taking the. crops all over, you find, 

 roughly speaking, that about 40 per cent, consists of 

 man and horse labour. 



Chairman: I think Mr. Donaldson said that those 

 particular figures applied to his own farm, and he 

 referred to Mr. Wyllie on the general question. 



Witness: May I say that is one of the special 

 points we hope to bring out in our analyses of the 

 results in connection with the balance sHeets. 



11.819. Mr. Thomas Henderson: I see you include 

 interest on capital in your costs of production. In 

 defending that method, I think you say that in the 

 opinion of most economists that is a fair charge? 

 Did I say in the opinion of most economists? 



11.820. Yes, your actual words are : "In the opinion 

 of most economists the cost of production must also 

 include a charge for interest on working capital and 

 a proportionate share of the expenses of manage- 

 ment "? What was in my mind at that time was, 

 that in the opinion of most agricultural economists 

 that was so. 



11.821. You admit you were referring to agricul- 

 tural economists? Yes. 



11.822. That is quite a different thing, as, of course, 

 you know ? Yes, I agree. 



11.823. I wanted to know who the economists w,ere 

 that you referred to. Of course, there are some agri- 

 cultural economists who say it is not a fair charge? 

 Certainly. 



