18 J 



ROTAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 



iO Ag**t, 1919.] 



MR. L. N. GOOUINQ. 



[Continued. 



4711. In principle you object to a guarantee but 

 you do not see how the farmer can be given t In- 

 security which is absolutely necessary to him to carry 

 on without a guarantor:- - 1 do not think that 1 ought 

 to give my private opinion upon the matter at all, 

 and I am not instructed to give the opinion of the 

 Chamber as regard* matters of policy. 



4712. Mi-. >' HI i/A: These figures that you have put 

 before us are purely estimates, are they? No, they 

 arc all founded on ta< t. 



4713. Arc these figures on page 3 founded on fact 

 us well the returns us to the estimated cost of keep- 

 ing farm horses in Norfolk P Yes, they are all on 

 returns received from farmers of the actual food given 

 to the horses returns which have been sent in to 

 me by the farmers. 



4714. There is a rather remarkable difference in 

 some of thorn:' Yes, there is a very remarkable 

 difference. 



4715. In one case I see it is put down at as much as 

 1 19s. 9d. to keep a horse in the stable per week, 

 and in another case it is only 1 Is. It is almost 

 double in one case? There is a groat difference 

 because on some farms it is necessary on account of 

 the condition of the land and the quality of the land 

 to give your horses more corn per week. One man 

 would have to give his horses perhaps on heavy land 

 6 to 7 stone of corn a week at 2s. 4cl. a stone, whereas 

 on a light land farm they might be able to do it on 

 4J or 5 stone. During the war I have been able to 

 keep horses on 4J stones on light land. Then if you 

 take a farmer who is conveniently situated as regards 

 meadows where he can put his horses out he is in a 

 much better position than another man who has to 

 cut everything and bring it to his horses. Again 

 another man will give his- horses stover, whereas 

 another gives them straw. I have taken the actual 

 quantities given by the farmers and averaged them 

 out. 



4710. Do you really suggest these are actual figures 

 and actual ezpendituroP Yes, I suggest that on the 

 average they are as near as you can get it, taking 

 one farm with another. 



4717. At one farm the cost of keeping a horse in 

 the stable is almost double what it is in the case of 

 another farm? Yes, that is so. 



4718. What about the grass? In one case it cost 

 3e. 6d. and in another 1 10s. Oil.? I put the 3s. Gd. 

 one in because it was sent to me, but I do not believe 

 it ran bo correct. 1 do not consider it to be correct. 

 I do not tli nk that anyone can keep a horse at grass 

 for anything like 3s. 6d. A week. I know they can- 

 not. I put it in Ix-cause, I wished to err on the low 

 side if I erred at all. That is the reason. I have 

 taken all the returns exactly as I have received them 

 end averaged them^out. 



4719. Would you think it is possible for the keep of 

 a homo to be as much at grass aa it is in the stable? 

 It all depends. Some people do not turn them out 

 at all, having nowhoro to turn them out. I know 

 one farm where everything has to be taken into the 

 stable all the year round. 



4730. These figures either mean that the horses are 

 Rt grass or that they are not at grass. It states 

 here that they are at grass, and if they arc not at 

 grass the figures are mislead ng in that respect? It 

 .-h.iuld be perhaps more correctly put as " during the 

 summer." It is usual to turn the horses out to grass 

 in the summer. 



4721. With regard to the number of working 

 horsed, would you suggest that a farm with 22 work- 

 ing horses would have no grass for the horses? It 

 all depends; I could not say for certain. 



1722. But taking it aa a practical thing what 

 would you ay? Not as a rule they would not. 



4723. This very case I am Cutting to yon, where 

 they have the largest number of horses,* 22. is the 

 case where the cost at grass per week is the highest, 

 1 10s. Od., and I suggest to you it would not IN- :i 

 practical thing in that case for them to have n 

 grass? You are referring to No. 3, Table A (1 ), 

 Ap|M-ndix VII.. and 1 know in that case the 

 give* bin horses 3 ..torn of rorn in tin- winter and 3 

 stone of oats and beam* when they are at grii- 



14 stone of hay a week. It is the hay which makes 

 it cost so iniu-li. Hit' i. >st <>i grazing on the meadow 

 i> |'iit at 3s. (id. 



I 1 2 1. 1 suggest to \ou thor- must IK- a good deal 

 of grass land going w.tii that I'arm which I see has an 

 acreage of 1,100, ami also with the one above it of 

 370 acres with 11 working horses. There would bo 

 a good bit of grass there cils'.r Yes, but ho probably 

 gives them stover, w Inch a good many farmers do 

 not do in the summer. 



17..".. Do you suggest that that 'is a rehable figure? 



In that actual case, yes. I have tiio return hero 

 from the farmer in that case. That farmer works 

 his horses 301 days a year, which is over the average. 

 Probably by doing that he finds it necessary to give 

 his horses more corn in the summer. 



472G. 1 1 the weekly cost in the stable in his case is 

 1 lu>. :id. and the cost at grass 1 10s. Od., it seems 

 to mo there is no advantage in feeding his horses to 

 grass at all, because there is only 3d. a week dilfor- 

 once in the cost. It seems to me there is something 

 rather strange about those figures? I will be pleased 

 to produce them to you if you would like to have 

 them. I have the returns from the farmer himself. 



4727. I do not suggest that you have not the 

 returns. It is the question of how far these figures 

 are based upon fact or upon conjecture? This man 

 gives his horses the same amount of corn in winter 

 as he does in summer. 



472S. Surely with grasf) a man would not give his 

 horses the same amount of corn as ho does without 

 grass? Yes, some farmers do. 



4729. You have not any information, I suppose, as 

 to the financial results of farming during the last 

 four years? I have them in course of preparation, 

 but I have not had time to complete them yet. 



4730. Would it be possible for you to complete 

 them and let us have them? I can do that at a later 

 date, but the figures for four years would be very 

 misleading because you are taking the four years 

 of the war. 



4731. I take it that the particulars of the details 

 would be there and we should be able to judge as 

 to their value? The particulars wmild l> there, 

 but they would be no criterion at all for the future. 

 As far as I can see the last four years or five years 

 would have no bearing at all upon the profits likely 

 to be made during the coming year, or the present 

 year as far as that goes. 



I732. You mentioned in reply to a question by 

 Mr. Parker that there was deterioration in the land? 

 Undoubtedly. 



4733. Do we understand from that that you con- 

 sider that must be taken as part of the future work 

 and expenses of the next few years? Yes, certainly. 

 Any estimates as to the cost' of production in the 

 future must bo based upon the cost of producing 

 those products under what I should call proper condi- 

 tions, that is to say, the fanning in a proper manner 

 and not doing it like we have been doing during 

 the last four or five years in order to get it done 

 quickly, but to do it properly. To do that you must 

 clean your land whirh is now in a very foul state. 



4731. Could you tell us whether the results of the 

 last four years have been very profitable to farmers? 

 I am not prepared to say at the present time. I 

 have not got the figures ready. 



4735. Could you say in a general way whether they 

 have been mucn mnre profitable than during the pro- 

 ceding years? I am not prepared to say. I can 

 bring before you at a later date the, actual returns 

 from the farmers themselves. I am collecting the 

 accounts' at the present moment. 



4736. Would you suggest that some of these profits, 

 if they are larger, have been due to the fact that the 

 land has not been properly worked? No. If the 

 profits were found to be larger during the past four 

 years it would be entirely due to the conditions of 

 war and to realising stock, a great deal of whi-h 

 was on the farm at the outbreak of war at war prices. 

 as has been done in other businesses partly that and 

 partly the depreciation in the value of money. 



17.'I7. During the war there has. of course, been a 

 shortage of labour. Would not the deterioration in 

 the land lie duo to the, fact that there has not been 

 sufficient labour to work it efficiently? Certainly. 



