102 



ROTAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 



24 September, 1919.] 



MR. JAMES WYLLH. 



[Continued. 



comparing these farmer* with utlu-r farmers I have 

 mrt. It is partly baaed also upon the fact that a is 

 only 1 do not want to Bay anything disresp. 

 bout the general body of farmer* ironi tin- more 

 intelligent class of farmers that one can hope to get 

 statements of this kind at such short n- 



13,043. Do you think that if you study carefully 

 the whole of these records which haw been presented 

 to ua they would substantiate tho view that these 

 record* are obtained from the better and wore skilled 

 class of farmer*? I think they would. 



12.043. Would you look at wheat for the years 

 1918 and 11)19, tho second column, on t)u> right hand:-* 

 This is a statement of average yields, is it not, over 

 a period, not necessarily the same period in each 

 case, with a variation between 24 and 38, which 

 shows an average allowing for the fact that it is a 

 604 Ib. quarter of very slightly nbovo the average 

 for the whole of England? On the other hand, in 

 the same column for 1919 tho average only just about 

 cornea up to the average for England, and if you 

 look at barley and oats I think you find that in the 

 case of oats in particular the yield is very low, 

 although there- are not 01101:^.1 .n.stamvs U> enable 

 one to say much about it. But certainly those yields 

 alone do not lead one to the view that your farmers 

 are more skilled or better class farmers than the 

 average? Of course it does not necessarily follow 

 that these farmers are farming under the best condi- 

 tions in order to get good yields. It may happen that 

 in the majority of these cases I do not say it has 

 happened the farms are on rather poorer clasM-.s 

 of land. It is impossible for me to judge how that 

 would affect the average of these particular cases. 



12.044. Have you formed any idea as to how far 

 these costs per quarter on cereals as stated in Part 

 B* are representative of general costs? No, it 

 has been quite impossible for me to form any such 

 opinion, partly from want of time. If I had been 

 able to go amongst the farmers for six months in- 

 stead of for one month I might have been able to 

 form an opinion, but any opinion I could give just 

 now would be of no value. 



12.045. You have not taken any steps to look at the 

 figure* themselves to see how far they could be re- 

 garded as representative? We made an attempt to 

 select farms which were typical of the different dis- 

 tricts. That was our aim, but of course it is hard to 

 say how far we succeeded in that. 



13.046. Yon realise that taking the 1919 wheat crop, 

 for instance, it is hardly sufficient to enable one to 

 judge how far it is representative because the num- 

 bers are so low, but just looking at it in this way 

 your lowest cost is 66*. a quarter, taking tho shillings 

 and leaving out the pence, and your highest is I 1 ;-. 

 You can tako tho mean or the average at almost 



ly tho same figure 80s. You have only eight 

 ab->vp 80s., and you have 13 below 60s., and you get 

 a considerable concentration at the bottom two at 

 C9s., three at "Is., two at 73s., three at 75s., and two 

 at 7-1. Taking those figures one would sir.pci t that 

 if you had 200 examples instead of 21 your average 

 would be more likely you would come out at 70s. 

 than at 80s. because of the concentration at the 

 bottom? It is perhaps quite right to say that it 

 is more likely, but I am afraid that it does* not take 

 us very far. 



12.047. I am just showing you how statisticians 

 would tost your figures if there wore enough of them 

 to be tested I admit there are not enough of them 

 to enable them to be fairly tested? I quite see the 

 point. 



12.04*. An one who ban had somr experience of col- 

 lecting statistic*, I say if you multiplied your num- 

 ber by 10 your average would come somewhere where 



on.entrntion in. Would you look at Sche.l 

 of your Part A where you 'say: "Allowam. 

 annual value ..f farm dwelling house according to 

 local ruten nv-i-KsmenU" What i \,i, -|y does that 

 mosn?- You wnnt to know why I make an allow:, 

 13.0.1!). 1 wnnt to know how you make it M w.-Mr 



"I- a i* that the farm dwelling-house is a 

 sonal concern of th" farmer and tli:<t it is not really 

 a part of the farm ti* a Im , rn. 



V" ' I rivhtlv (tint when you dike 



tho rent of the farm for apportionment between th* 



different department* you deduct the rent of the dwoll- 



ingn IIOIIMT 1 att<>ni|il to 'in that in evi 



12,u."il. Looking at S-h. (;, Pan A,* of the prim-ii'le* 

 to be lolloued in the preparation of . tateinents of cost 

 ol production of homo grown food, one can undei 

 the principle ijuite well in tho case of the first three 

 items ami the last two items, but are there not good 

 grounds tor tho opinion that hay ought to be classed 

 Miih the first throe, items:- 1 quite admit that is an 



in.-U dehaiaM. it. MI: then- is much to In 

 on , nh. r side in my opinion. 



12.052. Have you any idea of what proportion of 

 tho hay on a farm is actually soldi-' I Hupposo it is 

 somewhere about 20 per cent. so I am told. 



12.053. Havo vou an\ idea v. lure a market for any 

 more could be found;' At a smaller price I suppose 



a n.alket mill. I 1)0 found. 



12.054. What would consume it? More of it would 



be < ollstllllfd. 



12,(>.Vi. What li\ !- U.\ the same stock as consume 

 what is consumed at tho present time. 



12.056. It is consumed mostly by town horses, is it 

 not? Yes. 



12.057. Do you seriously put forward tho idea that 

 the- consumption of hay by town horses could be in- 

 creased so as to materially affect the amount that is 

 now sold off the farm? I do not suppose it would, 

 but that really docs not affect my judgment on that 

 particular point. Thai is hardly the line that 1 take. 



12.058. Now would you turn to Part I).* The manu- 

 rial value per ton of the foods consumed (here is bused 

 on Hall & Voelcker's Tables, with some adjustment 

 for qualities of cake. Which figure ol Hall A- Voel- 

 cker's is this? These are 191-1 figures. 



12.059. Food consumed in the sheds, or food con- 

 sumed in the yards? Food consumed in byres it is. 



12.060. Look at tho last sentence on that page which 

 says that Hall & Voclcker " Further state, that where 

 the manure has undergone deterioration through in- 

 ferior management, a deduction not exceeding .">() pci 

 cent, of the figures given, may be made, on this 

 account." It appears that what you have in fact 

 done there is to say that the mammal value per ton 

 of feeding stuffs has doubled since 1!11. but that as 

 50 per cent, of the value is lost, the 1!H 1 valuei-. may 

 stand. Is that not so? No, I do not think so. I do 

 not quito know how you would arrive at that con- 

 clusion. 



12.061. You multiply 17s., I presume, by 140s., and 

 so on? Yes. 



12.062. So that you have not, as a m.itler of fact, 

 discounted your 50 per cent, wastage: I have not 

 allowed for the .">(( per cent, wastage except in so 

 far as the wastage has bix>n put again>t the in. 



in manurial value sinco 101 I 



12.063. That is exactly tho samo thing, is it not? 

 I do not admit that the manurial value has inct. 



XI per cent., the figure -,vhich you mention. 



iL'.Otil. Why n.it r Kccausc the greater part uf tho 

 manurial value lies in the nitrogen. In these figure* 

 nitrogen was taken at 15s. per unit. I a*.i \<-ar tin- 

 unit value of nitrogen on tho land was imt more than 

 I**., an increase very far short of .Mi per cent. 



12.065. What- about potash? It is very difficult to 

 say what unit value you would put upon potash last 

 year. 



12.066. You can put it at 500 per cent., can you not? 

 ^ou can put it at 500 per cent., or anything you 



like, but I would like to point out in this connection, 

 that if you are going to claim an increase in the unit 

 value of potash to the extent of 5(10 per cent., it 

 follows from that that your land has hi--n dilapidated 

 to tho extent to which the potaOi has not he,.|i applied 



13,007. That, is quito true. Whatalioui phosphoric 

 acid al'o'r The increase there is considerably more 

 than in tho incroaw in the case of nitrogen. 



12.00-4. Houghly 100 per cent., IK it not? Yes. 100 

 per cent, roughly. 



12.0(i!i. So thnt in any rasp to get at the manurial 

 valm- you would have to mnkc considerable- in< r 

 in Hall and Voelcker's Table?! understand that 

 tin'-.- authorities are allowing an incrcjiso of KOIIIC- 

 ubere aliout ,'{O p,-r cent. 



12,070. You did not allow it?- I have allowed it in- 

 lircctly. I havp put that im-rea*** against tho wast- 



See Appendix IV. 



