MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



145 



19 August, 1919.] 



MR. J. O. VINTER, F.S.S. 



[Continued. 



stock or bullocks, if I fed them. That would increase 

 it for the 15 or 16 weeks you are feeding bullocks. 

 Of course, the way to get at the amount of cattle 

 on a farm is to take the average for the year. For 

 that reason, I have kept a capital account, and I am 

 able to say what the valuation is. 



3583. What does your valuation show, say, at 

 September, 1913? Up to 1913, it was 8. It was 

 10 at Michaelmas and 6 at March. I remember 

 discussing this point fifty years ago at the Statistical 

 Society. Sir Richard Palgrave made a statement 

 putting the capital all the year round at 6. I 

 challenged that statement, and Major Craigie sup- 

 ported the view I took, as also did Lord Everslev. 



3584. Is it right to say that the capital you have 

 employed on your land has practically doubled in the 

 last ten years? It has gone up from 8 to 15. 



3585. Mr. Batchelor : You have put down in your 

 current year's expenditure 10s. per acre for manure? 

 That is spread over the whole acreage of the farm, 

 not merely the crops. 



&586. That would be 160? Yes. 



3587. On the other hand, you have put down trades- 

 men's accounts as amounting to 1 per acre. That 

 is 320. That must include other items than trades- 

 men's accounts, must it not? I have given the 

 analysis. 



3588. I see it includes coal for threshing and binder 

 twine. Does it include the threshing also? Yes, that 

 is included in the tradesmen's accounts. 



3589. To come back to this vexed question of the 

 Government guarantee in regard to prices of grain, 

 may I put it in this way : you have estimated that 

 you can grow four quarters of wheat, 4J quarters of 

 barley, and six quarters of oats. Do you expect to 

 be able to grow those quantities in future as you 

 have done in the past? I do not expect to grow them 

 this year. 



3590. Did you make out your first estimate on the 

 basis of growing those quantities? I have recon- 

 structed the estimate. 



3591. Did you make your first estimate on the basis 

 of growing those quantities? Yes. 



3592. What made you alter it? The Government 

 guarantee, for one thing, and on the prospects, for 

 another, and the prospects are even worse than the 

 Government guarantee. I do not put my crops this 

 year at more than seven sacks of wheat, seven sacks 

 of barley, and I believe within a mile of me they will 

 not get more than four sacks of barley. 



3593. Will you tell me why you have not taken in 

 your figure your own estimate of what you are expect- 

 ing to grow seven sacks of wheat and seven sacks of 

 barley? Why do you take the Government figure? 

 As a comparison between what I had estimated in the 

 first instance. 



3594. If you really had grown 4J quarters of barley 

 as you estimated, why should the mere fact of the 

 Government making an estimate of four quarters in- 

 duce you to alter your figure of 4 J to 4? It was not 

 going to alter the quantity you grew? It was not. 



3595. That is why I cannot follow your alteration? 

 --I would like to clear it up. If I can understand 

 what you mean I can explain it. 



3596. What, is your estimate of your crop this year ? 

 You say 7 sacks of wheat and 7 sacks of barley? 

 Yes. 



:r>!i7. Why do you not put in those figures? I do 

 not put them in directly, but I put them in by 

 inference, as I have stated. 



3598. No, you have not put in 7 sacks? I think 

 I catch your point. I should have had to revise con- 

 tinually downwards, and it is only since I began to 

 cut that I should reduce my estimate of barley to 

 3J quarters. Therefore the position is materially 

 worse than what is set out in the figures. I am much 

 obliged to you for calling attention to that, but I 

 wanted to work on lines which existed to my mind 

 then. 



2521:, 



3599. Your reason for putting in the reduced 

 figures, which are the Government figures, was 

 because you are of the opinion that the circumstances 

 in your own case had so altered that the Government 

 figures were nearer the mark than your own? Yes, 

 and I have given you my estimate afterwards of 

 2s. 6d. per stone to prove that. 



3600. Mr. Ashby : You say your capital before the 

 war was about 8 an acre? Yes. 



3601. Does that include tenant right and unex- 

 hausted values? Yes. It was very low on that sort 

 of land at that time it was only 30s. to 35S. an acre 

 then. 



3602. You now say your capital has increased to 

 15 an acre, and that you have lost 4 to 5 on 

 unexhausted values ? The first is a fact, and the other 

 is an estimate. 



3603. Whereas you had 30s. or 35s. for unexhausted 

 values in 1914 or 1915, you have lost 4 or 5 an 

 acre since? Yes, but if I take a long period for one 

 purpose I must take a long period for another. It 

 would not be fair for me to take that over the one 

 year. It amounts to 1 per cent: over the whole 

 period. 



3604. What are the elements that enter into un- 

 exhausted values they are manures, manual labour, 

 and horse labour chiefly, are they not? I am not a 

 chemist. 



3605. Your total expenses on labour, including the 

 cost of growing the crop before the war, were 31s. 5d. 

 an acre; the manure was 7s. an acre, and the debit 

 difference in the cost of yo'ur horse keep was about 

 8s. an acre 7s. 8d. an acre? Yes. 



3606. Growing crops with that small expenditure, I 

 put it to you, it was impossible to have any very great 

 amount of unexhausted values, and that it was im- 

 possible on your farm, in those conditions, for you to 

 have lost 4 or 5 an acre? I do not agree. 

 Although I am an amateur in some respects, I have 

 been complimented by experts on the cleanliness and 

 good farming of my farm. 



3607. You agreed with me that one of the chief ele- 

 ments of unexhausted values is labour? Yes. 



3608. Yet your labour expenditure has increased 

 quite as rapidly. You have, as a matter of fact, 

 employed as much labour? -Yes. 



3609. You have not used as much manure, but in 

 any case the small reduction in the amount of the 

 manure used would not reduce the unexhausted fer- 

 tility more than a few shillings an acre? Only a few 

 shillings. 



3610. You only spent 7s. before the war, and 10s. 

 now, anoT assuming that you have reduced the amount 

 of manure by half it would only mean a few shillings 

 an acre reduction in unexhausted fertility? This is a 

 mere estimate; we cannot prove it any more than 

 we can prove the cost of any crop. 



3611. You said that you keep a ledger account, and 

 you credit your seed, I presume, to your crops, and 

 debit it again when you sell it? Yes, every bushel. 



3312. You do the same with your horse corn? Yes. 



3613. Do you always credit and debit at sale prices? 

 Always at the market price. 



3614. The figures cancel themselves out? Yes. If 

 I might address the Chairman on this question of 

 accounts, I do not know whether there will be any 

 doubt thrown on them, but my books are perfectly 

 open for any expert to audit. I have absolute con- 

 fidence with regard to them, because I need not say 

 to you, Sir, if accounts are proved to demonstration, 

 as mine are, there is no need to fear that any error 

 will be found, and I am sure that no error can be 

 found in them. 



3615. Chairman : Thank you very much. I am quite 

 sure that your accounts are perfectly accurate? I 

 do not have to have them audited, because they prove 

 themselves to demonstration, and that is the best 

 system of audit one can have. 



3616. You do your level best to keep them as accurate 

 as you possibly can? Yes, and they balance themselves 

 exactly, which is an absolute proof of any book- 

 keeping, is it not? 



K 2 



