1922.] 



Foot- AN d- M oi i r ii Disease 



8G3 



PRODUCE OF HOPS. 

 Preliminary statement showing the estimat(;<l total production of Hops in 

 the years 1922 and 1921, with the acreage and estimated average yield per 

 statute acre in each county of England in which Hops were grown ; and the 

 average yield per acre of the ten years 11)12 — 1921. 



Counties, &c. 



Estimated Total 

 Produce. 



Acreage ]-cti;rnetl 

 on Ith June. 



Estimated 

 Average Yield 

 per Acre. 



Aver- 

 age ol' 

 the ten 

 years 





1922. 



1921. 



1922. 



1921. 



1922. 



1921. 



1912 



to 

 1921. 



f East 

 Mid 



Kent -{ Weald ... 



Cvvt. 

 46.000 

 72.000 

 88.000 



Cwt. 



39,000 

 52,000 

 .52,000 



Acres 

 4,095 

 5.528 

 7,113 



Acres. 

 4.005 

 5!414 

 6.034 



Cvvt. 

 11-2 

 13 1 

 124 



Cwt. 

 9-G 

 9-7 

 7-9 



Cvvt. 



11- 4 



12- 

 10-7 



1 



I Total, Kent 



206.000 



143,000 



16.736 



16.053 



123 



8-9 



11-3 



Hants 



Surrey 



Sussex 



Hereford 



Worcester 

 Other Counties* 



11.000 

 2.200 

 33.500 

 30,000 

 17,700 

 I 500 



9.000 



i.r)00 



12,700 

 33,000 

 21.000 

 760 



1.073 

 217 

 2.354 

 3,945 

 2.032 

 95 



1.043 

 196 

 2.209 

 3,522 

 1.903 

 S7 



10-3 

 101 

 14-2 

 7 6 

 87 

 52 



8- 4 



7- 4 

 5-7 



9- 5 

 12-1 



8- 7 



9-9 



8- 2 



9- 9 

 8-1 

 8-7 

 6-7 



Total 



301,000 



221.000 



26.452 



25.133 



114 



8-9 



10-4 



* Salop, Gloucester, Berkshire and Suffolk. 



Note. — The total production this year is estimated at 301,000 cwt., or 

 77,000 cwt. more than last year, and 26,000 cwt. above the average of the ten 

 years 1912-21. Except in East Kent the yields per acre were above average 

 in the south-eastern counties, especially in Sussex where a heavy crop of 

 14*2 cwt. per acre was obtained. In the western counties yields were not so 

 satisfactory, being half a hundredweight below average in Herefordshire and 

 just average in Worcestershire. Results this year were therefoie the reverse 

 of those of last year, when the western counties had good crops and the south- 

 eastern counties lighter crops than usual. 



****** 



Foot-and-Mouth Disease. — Since the outbreak at Harmonds worth, 

 Middlesex, on 20th October, which was referred to in the last issue of The 

 Journal, eight further outbreaks have occurred of which four were in the 

 district to which restrictions were applied consequent upon the discovery of 

 disease at Harmondswoith, the remaining four outl)ieaks being confirmed in 

 the Woodstock district of Oxfordshire. 



In the Home Counties area, outbreaks were conlinned at Wa!ton-on-Thames 

 (Surrey) on 28th October, Windlesham (Surrey) on 30th October, Staines 

 (Middlesex) on 30th October, and Worplesdon (Surrey) on 13th November, 

 but no connection could be traced between any of these and the original 

 outbreak at Harmondsworth, nor were the later outbreaks apparently connected 

 with each other. The outbreaks at Windlesham and Worplesdon rendered it 

 necessary to extend the district subject to restrictions. The entire prohibition 

 of movement of animals is now limited to five small areas around the other 

 infected places. In the remainder of the scheduled area which has been 



