96  The  Cost  _ of  Winter  Grazing  in  East  Norfolk. 
the  cattle  during  the  first  period  of  grazing.  He  had  not 
supposed  that  they  had  gained  any  weight,  whereas  the  weigh- 
bridge showed  him  that  they  had  increased  over  3 lb.  a day 
for  nineteen  days.  Herein,  I think,  is  the  explanation  of  how 
graziers  are  frequently  misled  into  thinking  that  their  profit 
is  made  during  the  latter  period  of  fattening,  the  fact  being 
that  the  progress  then  made  is  more  visible,  though  also  more 
expensive  and  slower  than  that  made  during  the  earlier  period. 
The  weighbridge  is  an  undoubted  safeguard  to  a man  who 
is  but  a poor  judge  of  the  standing  value  of  stores  or  of  fat 
cattle,  and  also  to  the  good  judge  of  live  weight  when  buying 
on  commission.  It  is  therefore  regrettable  that  its  use  on 
Norwich  Hill  and  elsewhere  is  so  restricted. 
General  Summary. 
A summary  consideration  of  all  the  returns  siibmitted  to 
me  leads  me  to  say  : — 
1.  That  local  graziers  are  not  making  nearly  so  large  a profit 
from  the  production  of  beef  as  they  themselves  have  hitherto 
thought. 
2.  That  the  longer  the  beast  is  kept  after  sixteen  weeks,  the 
more  uncertain  the  profit  becomes. 
3.  That  the  highest  feeders  are  not  the  greatest  gainers. 
4.  That  the  net  profit  being  so  comparatively  small  and 
uncertain,  great  care  and  skill  are  required  in  the  selection  of 
stores,  in  getting  them  on  to  fattening  foods  as  rapidly  as 
possible,  and  in  the  curtailing  of  all  incidental  expenses. 
5.  The  necessity  of  knowing  when  the  cost  of  keep,  together 
with  the  prime  cost  of  the  store,  approximates  to  the  selling 
value  of  the  fattened  bullock. 
The  great  value  of  these  returns,  is  of  course,  in  the  fact 
that  they  represent,  according  to  the  graziers’  own  statements 
and  figures,  what  is  being  done  by  local  men  whose  prime 
object  is  to  make  a direct  profit  from  the  production  of  beef, 
manure  being  with  them  a secondary  considei’ation.  I may 
say  that,  after  having  tabulated  the  returns,  I read  a paper 
based  upon  them  before  our  local  Farmers’  Club.  Many  of 
those  who  had  supplied  me  with  particulars  were  present,  but 
though  surprised  at  my  conclusions  they  could  not  controvert 
them,  though  more  than  one  gentleman  remarked  that  if  they 
were  correct  he  must  have  been  ruined  long  ago.  The  explana- 
tion of  such  not  having  happened,  in  my  opinion,  is  in  the  fact 
that  in  spite  of  the  recent  low  price  of  wheat,  enough  money 
has  been  made  out  of  corn  growing  to  compensate  for  the  poor 
return  from  grazing  bullocks. 
L,  Some,  who  recognised  that  there  was  not  so  much  profit  in 
the  practice  as  had  hitherto  been  supposed,  gave  as  an  excuse 
