90 



ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 



29 (Motor, 



ME. II. i. H 



li>, US. In the samu paragraph it U ruUnT ranking. 

 is it not, that the average amount of depr.-i -lation 

 written otf implement* there, is almost exactly 10 \>cr 

 cent. P It u> so, yes. 



16.129. So that, although you have these big varia- 

 tion* between 5 per cent, and 15 per cent tin- a< mal 

 average U somewhat about the figure which i- 

 generaJly reckoned? Yes, that is so. 



10.130. In paragraph 3 in the case of the valua- 

 tions of live stock at the beginning and end of the 

 year tin- deferences are very slight, are they notP 

 They are not great, certain! >. 



10.131. Tin- difference of less than 3 10s. per head 

 on a horse is very small? Yes. 



16.132. Especially on a starting figure of 67? 

 Yes: 



16.133. The differences are ne\vr MTV big; they 

 are less than 4 even in tho case of dairy cows? 

 Yes, that is so. 



16.134. Does it not strike you there that the dairy 

 cows are still V.TV much undervalued? Yes, it looks 

 like that. 



16.135. Your average is less than 27 10s. and tli.> 

 average price of fair quality dairy cows is far above 

 that? Yes. 



16.136. So that in that case they are quite safe 

 valuations even with these additions? Yes, that is so. 



16.137. The same is true of sheep too, is it not. 

 more or less? Yes, so far as I know. 



16.138. The increase there is only Is. 7d.? Yes. 



16.139. In the case of pigs it is a minus difference? 

 Yes. 



16.140. Referring to the numbers of live stock at 

 ili.- beginning and the end of the year, have you 

 made any attempt to find out whether the amount of 

 live stock on these farms is at all comparable with 

 the general amount 67 live stock on farms in England, 

 and Wales, and Scotland ? No, 1 have not done that. 



16.141. Could you state briefly at some time the 

 acreage of these 216 farms and the 2o farms? It 

 would involve a fair amount of trouble ; it would 

 mean going into each of these accounts separately 

 and getting at the figures. 



!'>. 142. If you could do that it would give us the 

 best opportunity there is of telling how representative 

 these farms are as a whole. I am not sure if it could 

 be done, but it would be useful if we could got a state- 

 ment of the proportion of arable on these farms and 

 the number of live stock of each class per 100 acres. 

 We could then easily work it out for Kngland and 

 Wales as a whole and for Scotland as a whole, and 

 we should be able to tell how far these farms are 

 representative in that way? Yes. 



16.143. You have not tried to do that? No, I havo 

 not.* 



16.144. You have the types of farms dealt with in 

 various sizes? Yes. 



16.145. Did you anywhere put all together, all tho 

 dairy farms under tenant farmers, and homo farms, 

 and so on, so as to get an average figure of profit 

 for all dairy farms? Yes, vou will find that in 

 Table 16 with regard to 36 dairy farms. 



16.146. What is the first figure of profit for mixed 

 farms? 1 7s. 2d. per acre profit for the mixed 

 farms. 



16.147. In the case of the farm-, you have got. the 

 corn and sheep farms are rather better than any of 

 the rest? Yes, that is so. 



16.148. That is rather striking in view of some 

 previous evidence w<> have had here? The dairy 

 farms come out at 1 7n. 4d. per acre you will notice. 



16.149. Mr. Duncan: Do these Tables .1. and B.F.f 

 refer to the same farm accounts? Yes. they refer i.> 

 the same accounts. 



16.150. Is thero not SOP I notice in Table 

 .1. that tenant farmers in Scotland show a profit 

 on tho mixed farm of l(5s. 3d p. Yes. 



16.151. The mixed farm in Tal.lc U.K. showed a 

 profit of 2 7. 4d. Can vou toll me tho reason for 

 that difference :- That arose in this way: there was 

 a big farm of 13.0m acres, of which certain parti- 

 culars had to eome in after I had suhmitted thes 

 Supplementary Notes. When those particulars came 



* This is now shown in Table 2, Appendix V. 



t Provisional tables and not included in tho Final 



Report 



in I found that the account could not be used 



.itoly und so 1 threw it out. That quite altered 



the protit per acre. Tin- collect figure is 'J 7s. -Id. 



lii.l.'ij. I think you said in answer to Mr. liatchelor 

 that the rate of profit on t!.. cental worked out 

 roughly at about 11 per cent. ? Yes. 



16,153. I suppose that is taking the capital on 

 inn us being the valuation? Practically it is 

 the valuation. 



16,15-4. You have no evidence before you either on 

 these accounts or anything else to show that that is 

 the actual capital put into tho farm? No, we en- 

 deavoured as far as we could to get at the actual 

 capital in the farm. 



10.155. But you simply had to take the figures as 

 Divert you in the valuation by the farmer;' No, we 

 asked each farmer, besides the figure in the valuation, 

 to render figures of any Further capital or assets he 

 had sunk in his farm. In only a small number of 

 cases did they give that information. 



16.156. In comparing the return on capital it is 

 rather a different position if you take that figure as 

 shown in the farmers' accounts from what would be 

 the case in a return on capital in a joint stock com- 

 pany in which there is a definite capital on which to 

 base the return? That is so. 



16.157. These things would not be strictly com- 

 Pjarable? Not with quite accurately kept accounts, 

 no. 



16.158. Mr. Green: I do not want to ask you the 

 questions over again that Mr. Ashby put to you. 

 I only just want to clear the tiling up in my own 

 mind. We have had the most striking evidence here 

 about the losses on sheep farms. I see in paragraph !) 

 you say that the highest profits are on corn and sheep 

 farms 1 14s. 2d. per acre. That is so, is it not? 



Yes. 



16.159. Have you been able to analyse any of these 

 accounts which have been submitted to the Commis- 

 sion by members of the National Farmers' Union 

 with regard to sheep farms? No. 



16.160. Do they appear in any of your accounts? 

 No, not so far as I know. We have endeavoured 



to keep quite apart from the Farmers' Union 

 Accounte. 



16.161. All your accounts are apart from the 

 Farmers' Union? Yes. We have not very many 

 sheep accounts, you will notice they are quite few. 



16.162. I do not know whether you have -ecu those 

 accounts in the evidence which has been presented 

 to the Commission by the Farmers' Union? No, I 

 have not. 



16.163. Then it is not fair to ask you about that. 

 Somebody has asked you about the small farms show- 

 ing a higher profit than the large farms? Yes. 



16.164. That is accounted for liy the home labour, 

 is it not!-' To n largo extent, I should say, yes. 



16,lli-V You ruughlv put the largo farms as farms 

 of over 1,000 acre* I > i 



16.166. Have you analysed further whether tho 

 farms of ovor 2,000 acres are more profitable than 

 farms of ovor 1,000 acres? Yes, I think I have done 

 that. I would render tho figures to you if they are 

 at all useful. 



16.167. Can you tell us, roughly speaking, what 

 tho result \\;i^- No, I do not remember the result. 



16.168. Mr. Thtiiiins Hi mil r. tn n : Mr. liatcholor 

 asked you if you did not think that the percentage 

 of profit shown here is not somewhat inflated, because 

 of the lack of a reserve account having been kept 

 by farmers!- x 



16,1(!!'. In how many caws was it distinctly stated 

 that there had hecn an i-xhaiistion of fertility? In 

 something like 1'70 cases. I have a special paragraph 

 dealing with iliat point as regards fertility. It is 

 paragraph 11 l_'">.'t cases gave that, information. 



16,170. It is i|uito, possible that the others may 

 have omittod it through inadvertence? I do not 

 know why they omitted it. 



Hi. 1 71. From a study of these accounts, has any 

 impro-sion heeii made on your mind regarding the 

 adequacy of tho capital ou farms at present? From 

 a perusal of the accounts I do not think one could 

 form any opinion as to that. 



