MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



23 September, 1919.] 



MR. JAMES WYI.LIE. 



[Continued. 



as a rule, so that they can scarcely he taken as 

 typical even of farms in the same district I mean 

 as regards giving an average? The farms were 

 typical, but what we consider is that the manage- 

 ment was above the average. 



11.962. So that wo should have to take rather a 

 lower standard than this in arriving at an average 

 to give justice to the average farmer? Yes, quite. 



11.963. In the cost of producing potatoes is there 

 any differentiation between early potatoes and main 

 crops? .These are all main crops. 



11.964. Because the figures in Kent, for instance, 

 seem to be higher than in most places, and I wondered 

 if that was because they were main or early crops? 

 They are all main crops. 



11.965. It is simply because of some local conditions 

 that make the costs higher? I take it so. I am 

 told that the wages are higher in Kent than they are 

 in certain other counties. 



11.966. Mr. Kiitrhi'lnr : In Part A, Sch. C,* you refer 

 to the number of working days per horse per year. 

 Have you formed any opinion from the figures placed 

 before you or from your own knowledge as to what you 

 would consider is a fair average number of days for 

 a horse working per year? I am not prepared to 

 say what I would consider a fair average at all, be- 

 cause even if we could get an average figure in this 

 case it would bo of very little value. You may find 

 that on one farm it is only 200 days, whereas in 

 another farm in another district it may be 300 days. 



11.967. Wil you refer to Farm No. 1,* in the county 

 of Oxford. I presume you were at that farm? Yes, 

 I was. 



11.968. If you look at the number of working days 

 given there for the year bejiinniiij.; October, 1017, 

 and ending September. 1918, it is said that the horses 

 there worked 263 days. I presume that is accurate? 

 In this particular <-aso actual records were kept. 



11.969. Now look at the next year for the same 

 farm. The number of working days in that year 

 are 240. Do you observe that in the month of 

 February they only wrought 9J days. Have you 

 any idea of why that was? There may have been 

 a snow f torm ; it may have been bad weather ; I could 

 not say definitely. 



11.970. For the. month of March only 18 days were 

 worked. This is an arable farm, is it? Purely 

 arable. 



1 l,f>71. For the month of April 22A days are worked. 

 These three months f should h'ave expected in Oxford- 

 shire probably to bo the months when the horses 

 would bo doing something on the land? Possibly. 



11.972. Yet they seem to be three of the months 

 when the horses were doing the least work. You have 

 no idea how that is accounted for. have you? No, I 

 could not say. These particular figures were not pre 

 pared for this special purpose at all, and I think you 

 may take them as being actual facts. 



11.973. Do you know whether in the spring of this 

 year, on that particular farm, there was any flooding 

 through wet weather? I could not say. 



11.974. Compare the spring with the months of, 

 say, December and January. Taking December, I 

 presume Christmas Day was a holiday, this being in 

 England and there were at least four Sundays in the 

 month, that is five days on which the horses would 

 not be working, and as they wrought 23 days they 

 were pretty well wrought the rest of the time. Is not 

 December a month in which you would expect to have 

 some broken time? It is not a question of what one 

 would expect; it 'is a question of what actually hap- 

 pen ed. 



11.975. You have no explanation that you can give 

 of why in the spring months there is so little work 

 done with the horses on this particular farm, whereas 

 in the dead of winter there is so much work done? 

 No, I have no explanation to offer at the present 

 moment. 



11.976. Now I would like you to look at some of 

 your costs, and probably you can give us some further 

 explanations. 23 3s. 6d. is the cost per acre in 

 Lancashire of wheat? Yes. 



11.977. I see you have " Straw credited at 3 per 

 ton." That is in Part B. Sex-. A, and Part C, Farm 



No. 1-5,* you say: " Straw to Be credited at 3 per 

 ton." I presume you actually credited it before you 

 arrived at the figure of 71s. lOd. ? Yes. 



11.978. Would you look next at Farm No. 42.* 

 This is the sandy soil in Berkshire to which Mr. Smith 

 referred. There the note is, " Conditions for harvest- 

 ing almost ideal. Yield of grain average, but rather 

 under average of straw." I presume that these con- 

 ditions had a considerable effect, from the fact that 

 the yield of grain was so high comparatively speaking, 

 and the cost so low on sandy soil? Would you mind 

 repeating that. 



11.979. I am presuming that the note, " Conditions 

 for harvesting almost ideal," had an effect in bring 

 ing out the fact that you have the yield of 32 bushels 

 on sandy soil at a cost of 15 15?. 3d.? Yes. 



11.980. You have less expense than usual because of 

 those better conditions? Certainly. 



11.981. It was referred to by Mr. Smith as being 

 unusual that you should have such a result on sandy 

 soil, but the conditions were almost ideal? Yee, 

 quite. 



11.982. Will you look at Farm No. 61.* This is 

 the case of the lowest estimated cost of production 

 of wheat for 1919. Can you amplify that in any way. 

 To begin with, it is a farm of 90 acres arable land 

 and 45 acres of pasture. The wheat is after potatoes 

 and turnips on six acres, mangolds on 11 acres, and 

 clover on 14 acres. Do you think there is a sufficient 

 charge for the unexhausted manures 2? That 

 figure was arrived at from the information which the 

 farmer put forward. He gave me an indication of the 

 manuring for the potatoes, turnips and mangolds, and 

 he considered that that was a sufficient amount to 

 carry forward. We did consider that question. 



ll",983. This land is rented at 1 16s. 6d. per acre, 

 so that it is quite good land? Yes, I suppose it must 

 be. I would like to point out with regard to that 

 particular case, that the farmer is, BO far as I could 

 gather, a particularly able chap. He is a small 

 farmer, and he seems to be a particularly good man- 

 ager. I would consider that as one of the cases where 

 the costs are reduced because of the very efficient 

 management. 



11.984. I notice, for instance, the ploughing is 25s. 

 per acre only whereas if you compare it with the 

 highest' cost of production on page 70 the ploughing 

 there is 2 16s. 3d. per acre that is Farm No. 46,* 



heavy clay land in Kent? Of course there is a big 

 difference in the nature of the soil for one thing. 



11.985. Exactly? But it is quite possible that in 

 this particular case there was more work being dono. 



11,936. You also notice in this heavy expense on 

 page 57 that there are 16 tons of farmyard manure 

 applied to the wheat crop? Yes. 



ll,997. Also I see you have a note: " No allow- 

 ance is made for share of bare fallows, which must be 

 done every fourth or fifth year " ? Yes. 



11.988. What was the estimate of yield in that par- 

 ticular instance? The estimated yield was three 

 quarters for this year and the. average yield 27 

 bushels. 



11.989. Is there any reason why it should be below 

 the average do you know? I really could not say in 

 this particular case. 



11.990. It is a very heavy cost of production and if 

 you bring down the yield of course you put up the 

 cost? Yes, quite. 



11.991. Now will you go to Farm No. 50.* This is 

 sandy soil in Somerset with a rent of 35s. per acre? 

 Yes. 



11.992. It must be good land although it is sandy? 

 One might presume so, but it does not necessarily 

 follow. 



11.993. You finish up at the end of the barley by 

 saying: "Soil sandy loam, easily worked "? Yes. 



.1 ,994. So that probably the word " sandy " appear- 

 ing in Part B, Section B,* is slightly misleading? 

 It is. 



11.995. It is not sandy soil; it is sandy loam? 

 Yes, there is a big difference between a pure sandy 

 soil and a sandy loam that is quite correct. 



11.996. Dealing with oats, will you look at Farm 

 No. 45.* On heavy soil in Yorkshire the yield per acre 

 is 57J bushels. I think that is the lowest cost for oats 

 in 1918. Can you tell me what the rent per acre is, 



* Ftff Appendix IV. 



G 2 



