MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



119 



24 September, 1919.] 



MR. JOHN WILLIAM DOUTHWAITE. 



[Continued. 



That would be tractor ploughing. If you turn to the 

 tractor account, you will see the same ploughing 

 charged at 15s., and that is some of it. 



12.721. That accounts for the difference between 

 horse-ploughing and the tractor account:' You will 

 see I have not charged sufficient. I charged the 

 ' Overtime" work at los.; then I find that is not 

 enough, then I put it at 18s., and then at 25s. 



12.722. So that the 15s. is really a mistake? The 

 los. was actually charged to the tractor, but it was not 

 sufficient. 



12.723. It was a mistake? It was not a mistake, 

 because I had not had the experience. 



12.724. I mean if you had that to charge now, you 

 would charge more? Yes. 



12.725. It is too low a rate? Yes, that is so. 



12.726. Then as to the price you allow for duiii;, 1 

 see you allow for 124 loads, 24 at one place, and 

 then your charge for dung for swedes, 3s. 6d. a load, 

 and the charge for dung on barley os. a load? The 



c-ase is in 1917 at 3s. 6d., and the second case is 

 in 1919, when the cost of cake and feeding stuffs as 

 \ cry much more, and dung is worth much more. 



12.727. Do you think either of these prices high? 

 No, I do not; they are low. 



12.728. How do you arrive at these figures? Are 

 they customary, or what? No, I do not Know that it 

 is customary at all ; it is the way I have always done 

 it myself. I hud if I charge a crop with dung at 

 more money than that, it always results in a loss on 

 that crop. 



12.729. Would not it really be better to show the 

 cost of the crop by charging proportionately for the 

 different operations and expenses of it? I suppose 

 when I have been figuring it out I have put the duns; 

 at what I thought, to keep the costs down. 



12.730. In your part of the country do you sell dung 

 to incoming tenants as a way-going? No. 



12.731. Does the new tenant get the dung "for 

 nothing:' No, he pays for the unexhausted cake and 

 labour on the dung. He does not pay for the dung 

 itself. 



12.732. So that you really have no basis? No, no 

 regular basis. 



12.733. But compared with artificial fertilisers 

 these prices would be much too low, would they not? 

 Yes, I think so. 



12.734. You would have no doubt of that, would 

 j'ou? Not a bit of doubt. 



12.735. So that really the crop is under-charged. 

 That is my point? Yes, I think so. 



12.736. Then in the same way, in your sheep 

 account, you charge the shc-ep with 45 for 

 cake. But you do not credit the sheep with 

 anything in respect of that feeding? No, I think 

 not. 



12.737. You charge the succeeding crop with a cer- 

 tain proportion of the root crop? Yes. 



12.738. But you do not charge it with anything in 

 respect of the concentrated feeding consumed by 

 the sheep? That is so. 



12.739. Is not that a mistake in accounting? It 

 may not be quite sound, but I have always made that 

 my system, partly for simplicity. I just simply 

 charged half the cost of the roots to the sheep and 

 the other half to crops afterwards. 



12.740. But if you were to tell us what the cost 

 of these crops following sheep is, ought not you to 

 charge against the crop the residual value of the food 

 fed to the sheep? Yes, certainly I should do so, to 

 be quite correct. 



12.741. So that you really made an addition of 

 about 11 to the profits on the sheep, which would 

 wipe off the deficit, and you add 11 to the cost of 

 the succeeding crops? Yes. 



Chairman: We are very much obliged to you. 



(Tin- \\'itn<'i.< iritlidrew.) 



25831 



H 4 



