MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 



21 October, 1919.] 



MR. E. M. NONNELEY. 



[Continued. 



15.009. And you farm it on an 8-course system? 

 Not all of it. That is the heavy laud. 



15.010. So that this estimate of cost refers to the 

 heavy land only? Yes. 



15.011. Which is the best land from the profit point 

 of view the light? No, I should not say that. 



15.012. I am asking you which' yon think is the 

 best land? I have not gone into that sufficiently to 

 say. I should say that the heavy land in a dry 

 summer is better than the other, but in a wet summer 

 it is just the other way. 



15.013. This is the 1918 harvest. I presume 1918 

 was rather a normal year, neither wet nor dry, was 

 it not; so that the heavy laud would not have any 

 particular advantage in that year over the light 

 land:' No, I do not think it had. , 



15.014. And, according to your estimate, you made 

 nearly 2 an acre profit on your heavy land on the 

 8-oourse rotation? I really cannot say what profit 

 came from the heavy land or from the other. It so 

 happened that year, I think I have mentioned some- 

 where, I had over 20 acres of peas, which made 

 about 30 an'acre; but that was a thing I had never 

 done in mv life before. I have generally sold them 

 at about 5 per acre. There was a very consider- 

 able profit on that. 



15.015. What was about the acreage to which this 

 8-course rotation course would apply on your heavy 

 land? I have not reckoned it up ; I should think 

 something like 150 to 200 acres. Then there is 

 another thing I ought to mention. During the War, 

 for those years I have departed entirely from my 

 course. We were told to grow all the corn we could 

 in those years, and I cropped my land very heavily. 

 In one year I did not have a single acre of fallow. I 

 took extra crops. 



1 ".,016. I am not concerned with the previous 

 years; I am only concerned with 1918, to which this 

 statement of cost relates, according to the date at 

 the top of it. You say that you have 250 acres at 

 least -I think you said 1>.">0 to 300 of this heavy 

 land ; and on your own estimate here given you 

 show a profit over the rotation of 15 6s. 6d. on 

 eight acres, or 1 19>. Cxi. an acre. Then you say 

 that in this year you thought the e!ay land would 

 have no abnormal advantage over the light land; so 

 I want to bring you hack to the first point, that, 

 as a matter of fact, on your own statement, yon 

 make the bulk of your profit on your arable land? I 

 have never gone "into that, but I do not think it 

 is so. 



15.017. If you do not think it is so, I can only 

 bring you back to the point that you do not seriously 

 mean your own calculations? It is an estimate, and 

 I really cannot say where I did get most profit. 

 I do happen to know that on that one particular field 

 of 24 acres of fairly light land I did get a profit of, 

 f should think, quite 20 an acre, a thing I hav<- 

 never don" before. 



15.018. But a high profit on 24 acres would have 

 to bo enormously high seriously to affect the whole 

 of the profit on say 250 acres? I reckon it was a 

 profit of over 500, more than T had ever had before 

 on land of that sort, and that might have somo 

 effect. There were other things as well. 



15.019. Will jou have a look at your valuation for 

 :i moment. There are two items at the bottom; 

 " ti'higiK. (including i nrcs'l" and "stand- 

 ing crop-*." 1 see yon do not value the unexhausted 

 manures, (lie mamirial value of cake, &c., but yon 

 have there about l>2l in the two combined items to 

 start with, and 1,291 to finish. How much do yon 

 think in money your land has deteriorated over 

 each acre? -That year? 



15.020. Say from 1914 to 1918? It has deteriorated, 

 1 think, in that we have not had the labour, and, as 

 I say, I have .overcropped it. It is rather difficult to 

 say how much. I gave a rough estimate on one of 

 (lie-,, sheets. I forget what I put it down at, but I 

 think 25 or 2fi per cent. 



15.021. Then hedges 80, foulness of land 70. and 1 

 fertility 7~>. That gives you an average of 75 per 



over the three items? That is a fairly good 

 estimate. 



15.022. That, in money would not be a large sum 

 if you took the valuation at say 1,000. It would 



16970 



be only 250 over 700 acres. Is that your general 

 opinion? I do not know quite how you get at that. 



15.023. On taking the valuation of the two items 

 here, there is one missing on the proportionate 

 reduction in fertility, &c., as stated in paragraph 7, 

 which is 25 per cent? I am afraid I cannot quite 

 follow you. You are referring, I think, to the two 

 items at the beginning and end of the year, the 



396 15s. and 427. The 396 compares with the 

 886, and I did notice that great difference and re- 

 ferred to my books to see how it was. I see that in 

 1917 I had no dead fallow at all, and only 22 acres of' 

 half fallow. The total for fallowing came to 44 in 

 that year. The next year, 1918, I had 30 acres dead 

 fallow which cost me 6 an acre, that is, 180. I had 

 64 acres which I had half fallowed after seeds, which 

 costs 162. That alone came to a very considerable 

 sum. It accounts to a great extent for the difference. 



15.024. So that as a matter of fact you are start- 

 ing to re-improve your land to get rid of loss of 

 fertility? I just state that then I was obliged to. 



15.025. Mr. Batchetor: I understand in your profit 

 you include interest on your capital. It is not taken 

 out first? No, that is all I have got. 



15.026. Your capital is, roughly, about 20 an acre, 

 and 750 acres would be 15,000? I put it down 

 10,000, I think. If I were to sell it, then I suppose 

 the things would come pretty well to 15,000. I 

 have not put extra capital in ; but my capital has 

 increased because of the increased value of the stock. 



15.027. There is a sentence I do not quite under- 

 stand in paragraph 2, under the heading " General Re- 

 marks " : " Half year's Income Tax is included in 

 rent, rates, etc."? That is one year. I had never 

 paid much Income Tax before. 



15.028. That is in the year 1918? Yes. 



15.029. I understand your rent for that was 859? 

 Yes; I am afraid it ought to have been 865. I 

 forgot one little field of 3 acres which we occupy under 

 a separate tenancy. 



15.030. About how much would this half year's 

 Income Tax that you included come to? Something 

 over 100. I really forget. I have an idea it was 

 about 130. 



45.031. In these profits which you show for the 

 years 1?>14 and 1918, is it your opinion that you have 

 taken a great deal more out of the land than you 

 have put in? I think not, in the way that I have 

 used f&r more artificial manure 'the last few years 

 than I ever used before ; because I took a farm which 

 was absolutely run out as far as it could be, and I 

 have used far more artificial manure, but I have not 

 fallowed the land and kept it nearly so clean. It is 

 not so clean now as it was five years ago. That is on 

 my old land. 



16,039. So that these profits for the first five years 

 are inflated to that extent? Yes. 



15.033. And I suppose the opposite will now happen 

 for the next five years, if you want to put your land 

 back to the condition it ought to be in, and have 

 reduced profits? Ye,. 



15.034. Even assuming the costs and market prices 

 remain the same? Yes. 



15.035. Mr. Overman : From 1878 to 1894 were the 

 disastrous years, and then you began to improve. 

 Was that improvement in any way due to the altera- 

 tion of the .sy.stem in your farming? Yes, I altered 

 my system entirely. 



15,035A. Will you tell us in what way?- I laid down 

 more land to grass; and the heavy land which I kept 

 under the plough and which I had previously ploughed 

 on the 4-eonrse system I put on the 8-course system, 

 having put down three years temporary pasture, one 

 year dead fallow, and 4 years under corn. 



15.036. You increased your stock? Yes, I think 

 I did on the whole, more especially with regard to 

 breeding ewes. 



15.037. And therefore the increase in the profits 

 from 1895 to 1913 is due to the alteration of system 

 in letting your land down to temporary grass and 

 using less horse flesh and less labour, and in that 

 way curtailing expenses? Yea, a great deal. Of 

 course I took more land in 1894, but I managed that 

 on the same system. A great deal had been laid 

 down to grass before, and I saved a great deal of 

 labour by having more grass. 



D4 



