1922.] 



Crop Reporting. 



949 



The results so far obtained are as follows : — 



(1) No definite rickets were induced in sucking pigs fed from 

 birth on a diet rigorously restricted in the fat-soluble factor. 



(2) The addition of the fat-soluble factor in the form of cream, 

 cod-liver oil and lucerne to a deficient diet stimulated growth 

 in pigs declining in weight. 



In the House of Lords on 3rd November last, Lord Strachie 

 raised the question of the need for crop reports, and asked what 

 p p . . was the number of crop reporters, and what 



, J: ^. was the cost of crop reporting during the 



and the Collection ^ . . , ^ i .i. i i. 



of A ricultur 1 ^ financial year compared with the last 

 Statistics financial year before the War. In dealing 

 with the whole question the Earl of 

 Ancaster, Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agricul- 

 ture and Fisheries, replied as follows : — 



The answer to the noble Loid's Question asking for tliese particulars is 

 that the number of crop reporters in the year 1913-14 was 220, and in 1920-21, 

 336. The amount voted for crop reporting in the earlier year was £3,600, 

 and the actual cost £3,137 ; in 1920-21 the amount voted was £36,500 and 

 the actual cost was £34,117. The increase in the cost since 1913-14 was 

 mainly due to the fact that in the earlier period the Annual Agricultural 

 Returns were collected by the Customs and Excise. The actual cost of the 

 work to the Customs and Excise in 1913-14 is not known. It was all taken 

 as a block Vote, and the only information we can give on that point is that 

 about thirty years earlier the annual cost was estimated at £11,800 ; but since 

 1890 no special provision has been made in the Vote for the work done by the 

 Customs or Inland Revenue under this head, as it has been lumped in with 

 other services. There has been, however, no material change in the character 

 of the work between 1913-14 and 1920-21, and although it is probable that it 

 is more efficiently done under the present system, it may be taken as certain 

 that the collection of the Annual Returns is not more costly than if they were 

 still being collected by the Customs. 



The transfer from the Customs was made in consequence of the increased 

 duties placed upon that Department in other directions, and was authorised by 

 the Treasury in 1919, the work relating to these Annual Returns being under- 

 taken from that time by part time officers of the Ministry, known as crop 

 reporters. That is to say, crop reporters, after that time, had to furnish the 

 Annual Agricultural Returns which, up to that time, had been furnished by 

 the Customs. These officers, who received in the aggregate £3,600 in 1913-14 

 and £5,325 in 1915-16, when other duties were cast upon them, were con- 

 sidered to be underpaid. I think they were complaining that they did not 

 receive enough money, and when this additional work was placed upon them, 

 their remuneration was increased, partly in respect of the new work, and 

 partly in respect of their previous duties. 



