MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



79 



12 August, 1919.] 



Du. E. J. RUSSELL. 



[Continued. 



you oould give us the details of that 10 14s. 3d. 

 under general headings, s*uch, for instance, as I have 

 mentioned, rent, rates, taxes, insurance, manure, 

 artificial and otherwise, seed, and so forthj so that 

 we could make a comparable statement between your 

 expenditure and the expenditure of any other wit- 

 ness who may come before the Commission, it would 

 be very helpful to us > Yes, I will give you that. I 

 have got out the labour charges in paragraph 3. 



1841. I think if you would be kind enough to send 

 that- information to us it would be more satisfactory ? 

 Yes, I can get that for you, and I will send it 

 along. 



1842. Mr. 1'nrker: In paragraph 2 of your evidence- 

 in-chief you say: "The cost of growing each crop 

 cannot be definitely stated because it is necessary to 

 take into account the initial and the final states of 

 the land. This cannot be done precisely. It is legi- 

 timate to charge some of the expenditure on the 

 roots to the succeeding corn crop, probably 15 per 

 cent, would be a fair figure." Yes. 



1S43. Can you tell us whether the land is culti- 

 vated on the usual four course system, commencing 

 with root crops and ending with wheat, and whether 

 it is usual to charge any of the expenditure to the 

 wheat crop at the end of the course:' I am assuming 

 that the wheat follows the roots after mangolds or 

 after potatoes, for instance, which is what we actually 

 do. That is quite common, although the practice is 

 variable. But supposing it came at the end it would 

 not be legitimate to charge as much as 1-5 per cent. ; 

 you ought to charge something, but I think 15 per 

 cent, would be too much. 



I-ll. You would have to clean the land, which 

 would be for the benefit of the whole course, and 

 therefore then! would bo something to charge? That 

 is a purely arbitrary arrangement. I think the best 

 way is to get out the cash statements and recognise 

 that there is a deficiency on the root crops which has 

 to be distributed over the cereals. 



1845. In paragraph 3 you put the labour cost per 

 annum at CM 19s. 8d. for 1917-18. What is the mini- 

 mum wage that that figure includes?- That is given 

 in paragraph 4. The standard weekly wage was 

 id. for a horse-man and 26s. 3d. for a labourer. 



The estimated corresponding figure for the 

 1919-20 year is how much:' 41s. 3d. for the horse- 

 man, the standard weekly wage, and 35s. 3d. for the 

 labourer. 



1847. You speak in your evidence-in-chief of the 

 falling off in the efficiency of labour. I suppose it is 

 impossible to estimate bow far inefficiency is going to 

 add to the cost of production:- Y'-; 1 cannot get 

 out a figure really showing the reduction in efficiency. 

 I cannot get out any figure that would be strictly 

 fair to the workers. The situation is complicated by 

 the fact noted in paragraph 6 that in 1916-17 HO 

 had a very bad. wet year, and owing, of course, to cir- 

 cumstances whieh wore quite beyond llio control either 

 of the worker or the farmer that meant a great deal 

 of hand labour, which is necessarily rather inferior 

 as compared with the skilled labour that one puts on 

 to the horses. But there is a reduction of efficiency. 

 I am afraid, and of course that will add to the cost. 



1848. How do you anticipate the cost will be 

 affected by the reduction of the hours of employment 

 to 48, I think it is? The reduction from 54 to" 50 i<< 

 the one which will affect the cost. It is, broadly speak- 

 ing, a 10 per cent, reduction in hours. My view is 

 that it will add about 15 per cent, to the inefficiency, 

 so to speak. I think it will have a greater effect than 

 the reduction in the hours. 



'. Can you put into pounds, shillings and pence 

 the actual reduction caused by the increase of the 

 man hours in your farm from "2, 800 to 4,000? That 

 in a clerical error. The 2,800 should be 29,800, and 

 the 4,000 should be 40,600. The figure is correctly 

 (riven in tin- table. 



I '50. In paragraph 7 of your evidenee-in-chief you 

 give the financial return from an acre of wheat as 



!!-! before, in talile No. 6, you return per acre 



bushels. Is this return not much in i 

 of tho average throughout the country the '38-3 



'i? Ye, it is. 



35135 



1851. Very much? Yes. 



1852. That would be nearly 5 quarters ? Yes. The 

 average is something over 32 'bushels. 



1853. Yours was a very big return? Y'es. We 

 pushed up our yields during the war, of course, owing 

 to the need for increased food. We did it by the 

 greater use of artificial fertilizers and adopting 

 various technical devices. 



1854. In paragraph 8 you say: ." The following are 

 the cash balances given by each crop. These balances 

 have to furnish the remuneration for the farmer, in- 

 terest on his working capital, and contingency fund to 

 meet any event not covered by the ordinary insurance 

 and depreciations." Would you tell us what in your 

 opinion is a fair remuneration to the farmer and the 

 amount of interest on the capital employed? That is 

 a very difficult question to answer. I think on a 200 

 or 300 acre farm the farmer ought to have, sav, 6 or 

 7 per cent, return on his capital, and of course he 

 ought to have a salary as well. But on an ordinary 

 farm there would be stock kept, and the stock would 

 contribute something to those amounts. 



1855. What would you say per acre for salary in 

 addition? I would rather not commit myself to 

 definite figures, because, although the question looks 

 simple, it is really very complicated. There are manv 

 factors that come in. I think for general purposes 3 

 per acre of arable land might include the farmer's 

 remuneration and his return on his money under 

 present conditions. Of course, under pre-war condi- 

 tions, when he had not so much capital embarked, 

 less than that would have been necessary. 



1856. In paragraph 9 of your evidence-in-chief you 

 say: " These figures are probably representative of 

 much of the arable land of England "? Yes. 



1857. Do you mind telling the Commission what 

 rent you pay per acre? We pay 30s. an acre rent, 

 and in addition to that we have rates and taxes, 

 which brings the total up to 2 Is. The 30s. rent is 

 higher than it should be, but we were not free agents 

 in the matter. 



1858. Is your farm close to a station? It is about 

 li miles to 2 miles away. 



1859. You have to cart your produce 1 to 2 miles? 

 Yes. 



1860. What is the acreage of the farm? The total 

 acreage is 300, but I have given you the figures for 

 200 acres only, because 100 acres is the experimental 

 farm. 



1861. Is your land too heavy for using motor tractors 

 upon? Not during fine weather; but we still have to 

 discover whether we can use motor tractors in the 

 spring, when tho ground is wet. We can work them 

 at this time of the year. 



1862. How many men per 100 acres do you employ? 

 That, again, is a little complicated by the fact that 

 we have got experiments going on, and the men are 

 sometimes called off from the ordinary farm to carry 

 out experimental work. On the whole we have a staff 

 of 12 men and 2 women, but 2 of those are rather 

 uncertain. 



1863. The Chairman: How many of those are on 

 the experimental farm? They are all liable to be 

 called on to the experimental farm when there is not 

 much work doing on the ordinary farm. 



1864. You did not answer Mr. Parker, whose ques- 

 tion was, how many men to the 100 acres do you 

 employ in your commercial farm? We actually use 

 these 14, but we do not occupy them the whole of 

 their time. I have given the number of hours worked 

 in one of the tables. 



18fi5. Mr. Parker : Can you estimate at all what 

 should be the minimum prices for cereals having re- 

 gard to the Corn Production Act, and the increased 

 cost of labour and so forth? Last year the prices 

 were satisfactory. This year I am afraid the prices 

 will be less satisfactory, and for next year's 1 crop it 

 will be necessary to fix a price higher than the actual 

 current price now. 



1866. What price do you think ought to be fixed 

 for next year's crop? Do you mean generally speak- 

 ing or in regard to our own land? 



F 



