Some of UMM accounts represent the working of more 

 than one farm. 



It i apparent that a comparatively larger number of 

 account* nave been received from owner* and home farms 

 than fn>m tenant farmers, having regard to the relative 

 number of holding* in the country occupied by these 

 three dame* respectively. 



1 (d) -/*!/<!/ .r/,i>/, /,.// Yf<ir*eu,l. 



The 301 accounts close their financial year at tlu> 

 following datea : 



September, 1918 



':er 



mber 

 December 

 January. 



iarv 

 March 

 April 



June 

 July 



Total 



57 Accounts. 

 BO 



8 

 60 



8 



6 

 61 

 31 

 34 

 24 



301 



1 (e) Whether tlieie Accouiili are repreientntirf. 



In order to test to some extent whether the 325 farms 

 here dealt with are representative of the holdings in the 

 country generally, it has been thought advisable to compare 

 the number of live-stock carried per 10U acres on these 

 325 farms (291 in England and Wales, and 34 in Scotland), 

 with the equivalent figures for the whole country as given 

 by the Board of Agriculture returns for 1918. 



The results of this comparison are shewn in Table 2. 



England and Wales. 

 It will be observed from the Table that as regards 



England and 

 follows : 



Wales, the comparison works out as 



Number of Live-tlock per 100 acre* England ami U'/<x. 



There is no great difference in the number of live- 

 stock per 100 acres carried on these farms and on the 

 holdings in the country generally. 



Scotland. 



With regard to Scotland (34 farms), there is a notice- 

 able difference in the comparison, as follows : 



Number of Lire-flock per 100 acre* Sc<itl<in/l. 



The proportion of cultivated land to the total area of 

 these 34 farms is considerably higher than that obtaining 

 over the whole of Scotland, and the numbers of stock on 

 these farms is greater in all cases. 



This comparison with the live-stock in Great Britain 

 has been made on the basis of the total area and not the 

 cultivated area, as in a minority of the 325 farms the 

 cultivated area was not given. 



A perusal of the figures received showed, however, that 

 the result* of the comparison would have been approxi- 

 mately the same if it had been worked out on the basis of 

 the cultivated area. 



The average size of the 325 farms (431 acres) U 

 greater than that obtaining over the whole of the country. 



Paragraph 2. Valuations. 



2 (a) Ait'<l>/it f tl ; ,lf<l in mnl in;/ the 



.\lllHlill 





Farmers were requested in the Schedul - circulated to 

 them to state the basis on which the annual val 

 was made, and the following are particulars of (lie various 

 hues adopted. The requisite information was gm-n in 

 224 cases, as follows : 



Basis of market value 148 



Basis somewhat under market value 

 and described variously as " Low 

 Market Value," M ! ite Market 



He," " Somewhat under Mar! 

 Value." ,vc 21! 



(3) Cost price, fixed price, pre-war figures, 



&c 



(4) Varying bases adopted for the different 



items in the valuation ... ... 18 



224 



The basis of valuation was not given in ... 77 



Total ... 301 



Of the 301 valuations, 98 were made by licensed 

 valuers, and of the 97 supplementary accounts dealt with 

 in paragraph 1 5, 54 valuations were also made by licensed 

 valuers. 



With regard to the 77 accounts mentioned above where 

 the basis of valuation was not given, in a large number 

 of these cases the valuation was made by licensed valuers, 

 and probably in the majority of them a valuation based 

 on approximate market prices may be assumed. 



As. regards implements, &c., in 35 cases only the per- 

 centage of depreciation written off annually was stated, 

 and the particulars are : 



5 per cent, written off annually 

 M ii ii ii 



1} ii ii 



1^2 ,, ii ii 



1*> II 1! II 



Annual depreciation written off, 

 percentage not stated ... 



5 



3 

 16 



i 



1 



but 



Total .. 35 



2 (b) Tlie ttasit of Valuation anil its Bearing on the 

 ProJUi. 



It will be seen (Table 13) that the increase in the amount 

 of the closing valuation over the valuation at the beginning 

 of the year (increase 212,724) more than accounts for 

 the whole of the surplus or profit shown (profit 1 90,298), 

 and the basis on which these valuations have been made 

 (whether market value, cost price, &c.) is therefore of 

 considerable importance in endeavouring to determine the 

 amount of the true profit shown by these accounts. 



Paragraph :! of this report shows that the value per head 

 of practically all the live-stock is greater at the end of the 

 year than at the beginning ; though this fact alone does 

 not necessarily imply that the closing values have been 

 unduly inflated. 



It is, in fact, impossible from the information available 

 in the accounts to state what is the amount of real jirofit 

 shown. If for the name head of live-stock, e.g. working 

 horses, breeding stock, &c., or for the same implements 

 and machinery, an increased value has been taken at the 

 end of the year, then to that extent a paper profit is included 

 in the amount of profit shown. 



It may be that a comparison of the values per head at 

 the beginning and end of the year (in paragraph 3) with 

 the general movement of costs and of market prices during 

 the year, may throw some light on this |n>int. 



If the same values per head adopted at the beginning 

 of the year had again been taken in valuing the live-stock 

 at the close of the year, then the t otal value of all live- 

 stock in the 237 accounts dealt with in paragraph '.'< would 

 have l>een about 075,000 instead of 710,302 ; a reduc- 

 tion of say 35,000 on the V'.'J accounts. The correspond- 

 ing reduction in the value of all live-stock of the whole 

 301 accounts would be say 45,000 ; and if this adjust- 

 ment followed through to the profit, the profit would l>e 

 reduced to the same extent. 



Thewi figures are put forward merely as an illustration, 

 and it is not suggested that this would necessarily be a 

 proper basis for the valuation. 



