96 



ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 



23 Stpttmbtr, 1919.] 



MR. JAMF.S WYLUK. 



11.878. The toil has been Tory much emphasised 

 her* by farmers P I do not know what f armors hare 

 been doing here. 



11.879. They are always pointing out to us the diffi- 

 culties they hare in these sandy soils P Of course 

 there are sandy toils and sandy soils. 



1 1 >SQ. I notice the same thing applies in regard to 

 mangolds, that the average yield in Part B section E* 

 is the highest on Somerset sandy soil again. One is 

 rather interest**! in these figures in that respect, be- 

 cause we hare always had the farmers lamenting their 

 hard lot where they get these sandy soils P In taking 

 that case of mangolds, you will notice that the cost 

 per acre is 29 6s. 6d. That indicates at once that 

 it must have been getting specially good treatment in 

 some shape or form. 



11.881. Even then it is not the highest. You have 

 got one as high as 31 and you have another one 29 

 17s. Id. in Hants. These figures hardly harmonise 

 with the previous statements we have had in regard 

 to the class of soils which farmers have to deal with. 

 Then as regards potatoes, in so far as Lincolnshire is 

 concerned, I am rather surprised that Lincolnshire is 

 not more prominent. I see there is nothing in 1918 

 for Lincolnshire, which is a very big potato-growing 

 county, and in 1919 I notice under that column the 

 average yield is less than the average for these other 

 counties. I always thought that Lincolnshire was 

 very prolific in its production of potatoes? I have no 

 doubt yon are thinking of south Lincolnshire. This 

 particular case happens to come from north Lincoln- 

 shire, from the wold land. 



11.882. You have no figures in regard to south 

 Lincolnshire? No, unfortunately we have not. 



11.883. .Sir William Ashlry : I should like to ask you 

 one question which is not really of very great im- 

 portance for our purpose, but is of interest from the 

 accounting point of view. I see that in your instruc- 

 tions in Part A Sch. D* and onwards, you suggested to 

 the farmers that they should enter something for 

 interest and something for management for every kind 

 of produce. Did they as a matter of fact do that, or 

 did you in the office add 5 per cent, for interest and 

 something for management? I should say that in the 

 majority of cases farmers feol verv strongly on this 

 point. "They feel very strongly that costs are not 

 complete unless they include something for interest 

 and something for management. 



11.884. But as a matter of fact, they did themselves 

 put down figures for those two items? In the ma- 

 jority of cases whore they put a statement before me 

 they had included it. They were uncertain in some 

 cases as. to how to get at what charge to make, and in 

 many cases I discussed the matter with thorn before 

 arriving at what particular charge to make for in- 

 terest. They were not sure as to how to make the 

 charge, but they felt very strongly that there should 

 bo a charge included ; that is the position. 



11.885. Quite BO, and you advised them that 5 per 

 cent was a reasonable charge to make? I took that as 

 being a reasonable charge for interest on capital. 



1 1 .*"*6. Have you got any grounds for that? My 

 reason was that 1 considered that if a farmer has 

 1.000 of capital, ho is entitled to get such interest 

 ft' he could obtain bv investing that 1,000 outside the 

 farm altogether. That is why I took this figure of 

 5 per cent. n being a reasonable amount to charge. 



- -7. To covor the rate of interest on a safe and 

 untroublesomo investment? Yes. 



11, "88. Therefore, before the war you would have 

 recommended something like .'<{ or 4 at most, instead 

 of 6 per cent.? I recommended 3J per cent, before 

 the war. 



1 1 ,RR9. Leaving unducussed the question of whether 

 interest should be charged or not because after all it 

 does not really matter you have charged this interest 

 only on the outlay ad set forth hen- for instance, on 

 wheat No. 1, Farm No. 1* that is to say, you have 

 charged it only on what used to be called thn circu- 

 lating capital employed ; you havo not charged it on 

 thf fixed rapit.nl?-. Of course interest on capital has 

 been charged in arriving at the cost of horse labour 

 in most cases, and it has also been charged on imple- 

 ments in arriving at the charge for implements in 

 most case*. 



11.890. So that, in one way or another, you have 



included mien-tit on all the capital invested? Yes, I 

 reckon that 1 have. 



11.891. With regard to management, were they in 

 the same perplexity as tiny \\cro in respect of in 

 tcn*t. Did they consult you as to wlrit would \f 

 it fair charge!' In some cases the figure which tho\ 

 put in for management was, in my opinion, extra- 

 ordinarily low. In other cases it was extraordinarily 

 lnizh. and in neither of those cases did I accept the 

 figures : they have been modified to that extent, after 

 discussing tie question with the farmers. 



11.892. It looks as if, from Farm No. 1 and such 

 other examples as I have observed, you have roughly 

 charged 1 an acre for management? On the average 

 it will not work out quite so high as that. 



11.893. What principle did you adopt? The basis 

 which I took was to allow for management, about 300 

 per annum on an average 300-acre farm that was 1 

 per acre but part of that i'.TOO was allocated to live- 

 stock and only the remainder was distributed over the 

 crops. So that if we were charging 300 on a 300-acre 

 farm wo would not be charging 1 per acre against the 

 crops but something less according to the way in 

 which the farm was run. 



11.894. Yes, but how did you get that figure in 

 your own mind. Is that the market value of the 

 services of the man to manage a 300-acre farm? My 

 idea is that if you wanted a man to take full charge 

 of an average 300-acre farm I mean a mixed farm 

 you would require to pay an inclusive sum of rent 

 of about 300. It might be 50 less or it might be 

 50 more, according to the nature of the farm, but 

 that was my sort of standard ; it is difficult to be any 

 more precise than that. 



11.895. Based upon your impression not of whai 

 you ought to pay, but what, as a matter of fact, 

 you have to pay? I would consider from what I 

 know that managers who are in full charge of farms 

 of that size and of that kind will be getting at the 

 present time an inclusive sum of round about 300 

 per annum. 



11.896. If you look at farm No. 3,* in the 

 second column I see you put: " Management, say, 

 300 over 255 acres " in that particular case? Yes, 

 in this particular case it was a farm which was 

 worked very intensively. You have happened to 

 strike upon one which is perhaps rather exceptional 

 in this particular connection. This particular farmer 

 has had a college training. He has a B.Sc. in Agricul- 

 tureand naturally ho values his services rather 

 higher than the ordinary farmer would do. That i 

 his own valuation in this particular case. 



11.897. Did tho majority of the returns actually 

 give a figure for management? The majority cer- 

 tainly did. 



11.898. Would the average of that majority be 

 approximately the same as your 1 an acre? No; 

 in the larger farms in a good many cases it was put 

 in as low as 10s. per acre, and then in Rome cases 



rs are rather strong on this particular point, 

 that it was unfair to charge the same amount for 

 management to, say, roots as to potatoes, because 

 they say potatoes require much more management 

 than roots, and they attempted to put a larger amount 

 against potatoes and a smaller amount against roots. 



11.899. But in every case where they charge what 

 seemed to you far too little, before altering the figure 

 you havo corresponded with them and gained their 

 assent to the larger figure? Certainly. I have either 

 seen them personally or corresponded with them a* 

 you say. 



11.900. So that you have been engaged in educating 

 them as to what they ought to charge for manage- 

 ment;- Well, yon can put it in that way, I suppose. 



11.901. r/Kji'rmuri : -You mentioned interest. If you 

 will kindly look at wheat No. 1 Farm No. 1 you say 

 there : " Add interest at 5 per cent, on 935 7s. 6d." ? 

 Yes. 



11.902. That is the total cost of growing 100 acres 

 of wheat in 1918? Yes, 



11.903. You add 5 per cent, interest on the cost? 

 Yes. 



See Appendix IV. 



