MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



81 



1-2 August, 1919.] 



Du. E. J. RUSSELL. 



[Continued. 



not, which is a thing which you might expect? 

 During the war period it was not us marked as one 

 would have expected, because the women and children 

 who came on to the land did splendidly ; considering 

 their physical limitations the work was superbly 

 done. I do not want to give the impression for a 

 moment that the work was not properly done. Ac- 

 cording to my own observation the work was done 

 to the very utmost power of the workers, the workers 

 being inexperienced people. At the present time our 

 difficulty is that the workers who come to us have no 

 knowledge of agriculture, and have to be taught 

 everything from the beginning. 



1896. You have no experience of demobilised soldiers 

 who were previously employed in agriculture:" They 

 have not come our way. Of course we have got our 

 own people back, but the sort of men who are coming 

 to us now asking for work usually have had no 

 agricultural experience at all. 



1897. In the case of the men that are coming tmck, 

 do you notice any marked decline in their efficiency 

 as compared with the pre-war period? Do you mean 

 our own men? 



1898. Yes. No, I do not, but they have told me in 

 conversation that they find it very difficult indeed to 

 settle down to work again. 



1899. That. I think, is the common experience? 

 Yes. C'uriouslv enough, some of them say they did 

 not feel that way when they first came back ; the re- 

 action has been deferred. 



1900. You expect the re-action will only be a tem- 

 porary one? Yes. I have great hopes that it will pass 

 away. 



1901. Taking it altogether, this deficiency of 

 labour is either due to the w:ir conditions which are 



i t immediate post war conditions .such as 



the reaction due to the change of life on demobilisa- 



tion:' Tii;ii M so, and I think if it could be arranged 



for the men to be shown that their work is essential 



for the country they would very C|iiickly pull them- 



i together again. That is why in my conclusions 



I put as the first thing to be 'lone the arousing of the 



civic conscience, both amongst farmers and workers. 



one of those immaterial factors rather than a 



r material factor. 



1902. Is there not another factor involved : have 

 your horses and your machinery been kept at .the 



level of working efficiency as l>efore the war!" 

 We have tried to do that and we have, of course, in- 

 tnxlnecd new machinery wherever we have found it 

 able. 



I. Was it not at some periods almost imp< 

 ; th<. machinery vou wanted!' Y. v it :i- diffi- 

 hut we have "always been very well supplied 

 witli ma<-li ii'-rv perhaps more than the ordinary 

 farm, because of our experimental work. 



liNll. As regards the quality of your horses, has 



that deteriorated in any way? I do not think they 



greatly deteriorated. \Ve 'ised to work our farm 



with bought from I/ondon- horses 



that were no longer good enough for the London 



streets, but which quickly recovered themselves when 



they got out on the land- so that we never paid a 



price for our horses, and we have never really 



had first-class horses. 



1003. You agree that defects in horses or machinery 



would tend to hold the men back? Ye3. I recognise 



that, lint still I am afraid there is no getting away 



from the fact that there is a falling off in efficiency. 



190(5. That, you say. is due to war reaction? Y. 



1907. Having regard to the total wanes spent 



during the year as set. out in paragraph 4, mav we 



iio that a deduction is mnde for such work as 



was done by vour men when they wore called off 



for the experimental work? Yen. You will see we 



are very careful about keeping accounts, and a sharp 



distinction is mado between the experimental and the 



ordinary farm work. 



". You said if the price of wheat was to fall 

 In-low 0s. to (Vis. a quarter, you would have to give 

 up wheat growing. I suppose you meant by that 

 if the normal prioe of wheat went below that. You 



would not consider it necessary that so high a price 

 as 80s. or 85a. should be guaranteed for every year? 

 If the cost of production were to remain at its 

 present level I am afraid a high price would be neces- 

 sary. There is a limit to the yield which is fixed by 

 climatic conditions and these cannot be altered. 



1909. It does not follow for wheat growing to be 

 profitable on the whole that it should be profitable 

 every year. Supposing the wheat crop of one year 

 were not profitable, would you not expect to make 

 up for the failure of the wheat crop by your success 

 in another crop, and to make up tor the failure of 

 the other crops in another year by the success of 

 your wheat crop? That would not be so in the case 

 of our cropping ; it is cereals that pay, and if we 

 lost money on our wheat we should have to re-organise 

 our system of farming altogether. 



1910. Do you suggest that if in a single year the 

 price of wheat fell below 80s. a quarter you would 

 cease to grow more wheat? Not in a single year, of 

 course, but we should have to do unless we saw a 

 prospect that the price of wheat on the average 

 would recoup our expenditure on the wheat. Unless 

 we could see such a prospect we should have ito give 

 it up or else produce it in quite a different way, which 

 of course we might be able to do. 



1911. Do you mean if the experience of a parti- 

 cular year and your knowledge of general conditions 

 led you to expect that the price would in the future 

 be below 80s., you would then give up wheat grow- 

 ing? Yes, on our present methods. It will cost us> in 

 the future when the reduction of hours comes into 

 force something like 18 an acre to grow wheat on 

 present methods, as far as I can see, and that 18 

 must be recouped by the wheat crop. We have 

 nothing else on whi"h we could throw any deficit, 

 and although I do not expect to get the money back 

 every year we must get it back over an average of 

 years. 



1912. Mr. Longford : Your land, I think you stated, 

 is very suited to wheat growing? It is not first-class 

 land : I want to make that quite clear. 



lOI.'i. What is the usual rental of land in your 

 district? Ordinarily the rental would be about 1 

 an acre; in our particular case we have to pay 30s. 



1914. In your district you regard the wheat crop 

 as an important crop in your system of rotation? 

 in our system of farming. 



11)15. Your average crop of wheat is below 30 

 bushels an acre according to the figures you have 

 given rrs? That is due to the very low yield in 

 li'l(>-17; a catastrophe of that sort does not happen 

 every five years. 



l!M(i. It i-, one of thesr- five years at any rate? 

 That is so. 



1917. And of course it might happen two years in 

 Miecivs.sion? Yes, it might easily happen like that, as 

 it did in 1878 and 1879 for instance. 



1918. If your best crop of wheat is as low as that, 

 even at 80s. a quarter it cannot be a profitable crop, 

 can it? There is the straw to be taken into con- 

 sideration ; we have taken no account of the straw 

 here. 



1919. Do you sell the straw as a rule? Yes. 



1920. Do you suggest that the sale of the straw 

 would make up the difference between a profitable 

 crop of wheat and an unprofitable one? It depends 

 very much upon the market one gets for straw; some- 

 times one gets quite a fair price for straw. 



1921. What class of greens do you refer to when 

 you say you have given up growing greens? Savoys 

 and brussel sprouts. It is essential in oirr district 

 to have a fallow crop once in five or six years, and we 

 wanted to find out which of the fallow crops would 

 cause us least loss of money. 



1922. These greens are really market garden crops? 

 Yes. 



1923. You found that market gardening, at any 

 rate with regard to the growing of green, was un- 

 profitable in your district? Absolutely. 



F 9 



