SOME ECONOMIC ASPECTS of the SHEEP INDUSTRY in the WEST of ENGLAND Report No

LNjNI FOUNpATION OF ACZ1ICULTURAL E66PO.L1103 LIBRARY

UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL

DEPARTMENT of ECONOMICS (Agricultural Economics).

SOME ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE SHEEP INDUSTRY IN THE WEST OF ENGLAND Report No. 1

Store Lamb Production in the Upland Areas of S.W. Somerset

by R. R. JEFFERY

Price 5s. ..

. SOME ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE SHEEP INDUSTRY IN THE WEST OF ENGLAND

Report No. 1

Store Lamb Production in the Upland Areas of S.W. Somerset

General agri- THE changes brought about in the structure of British culture, and especially in the relative importance of the various post- agricultural products by the exigencies of wartime and has war conditions have been very great indeed. Nowhere and the change been more striking than in the case of mutton lamb production which fell from a pre-war (1937-39) average of 214,000 tons to 117,000 tons in 1947, and has since recovered to approximately 149,000 tons in 1950. TABLE I Annual Production of Mutton and Lanb and of Beef in the United Kingdom Average 1937-8-9 to 1949

Mutton and Lamb Beef Tons Tons (000) % (000) % 1937-39 Average 214 100-0 591 100-0 1940 . 227 106-1 557 94-2 1941 . 176 82-2 523 88-5 1942 . 171 79-9 453 76-6 1943 . 159 74-3 445 75-3 1944 . 442 66-4 487 824 1945 . 134 62-6 517 87-5 1946 . 152 71-0 538 91-0 1947 . 117 54-7 479 81-0 1948 . 123 57-5 470 79-5 1949 . 140 654 502 84-9 1950* 149 69-6 605 1024

* Approximate figures. Source: Annual Abstract and Monthly Digest of Statistics

A similar but less marked fall took place in the production reached in of beef. The lowest level of beef production was per cent of 1943, but by 1946 production had recovered to 91 a sharp the pre-war level. The following year, however, saw beef pro- set-back, and the fall was continued in 1948, when tons per duction was 79.5 per cent of pre-war, and only 25,000 1949 the annum above the lowest point reached in 1943. By 277 effect of the Calf Rearing Subsidy began to be felt, and beef production in that year reached 84.9 per cent of the 1937-39 average, but was still below the level reached in 1945 and 1946. In 1950 a further very marked increase occurred and total production advanced from 502,000 tons in 1949 to approximately 605,000 tons in 1950, a figure 2.4 per cent higher than the pre-war average of 591,000 tons. Production of mutton and lamb in the United Kingdom between 1939 and 1950 declined to a much lower level than was the case with beef, and recovery has been at a considerably slower rate. Output fell steadily from 1940 to 1945, recovered somewhat in 1946, but, following the storms and severe winter conditions of the early months of 1947, production slumped to a new low level equal to only 54-7 per cent of the pre-war figure. The following three years 1948-50 record a slow but gradual recovery, but total production in 1950 at approximately 149,000 tons was only 69.6 per cent of pre-war output, and still below the level reached in 1946. Concurrently with changes in the quantities of home- produced meat supplies, some marked changes in the level of imported supplies have also occurred.

TABLE 2 Estimated Mutton and Lamb, and Beef and Veal Supplies of the United Kingdom 1938 and 1949

Mutton and Lamb Beef and Veal 1938 1949 1938 1949 Tons Tons Tons Tons (000) (000) (000) 0/0 (000) % Home Supply . 211 38 140 28 605 51 528 59 Net Imports . . 344 62 361 72 585 49 370 41 Total . 555 100 501 100 1,190 100 898 100

Source: Commonwealth Economic Committee: Meat 1950.

Between 1938 and 1949 total supplies of beef and veal available for consumption in the United Kingdom have fallen by 292,000 tons, equal to 24.5 per cent of the 1938 figure. Mutton and lamb supplies have fallen by only 9.7 per cent, or 54,000 tons. Net imports of mutton and lamb during this period increased by 17,000 tons (4.9 per cent), to offset a fall in 278 home-production of 71,000 tons; net imports of beef and veal declined by 215,000 tons (36.7 per cent) and home-production by 77,000 tons. Thus, in 1949, although total supplies of mutton and lamb were approximately 10 per cent below the 1938 level, the proportion produced in the United Kingdom had fallen very considerably. In the case of beef and veal the proportion produced at home had increased, but total supplies were nearly 25 per cent lower. Apart from changes in the level of imports between 1938 and 1949 there have also occurred changes in the relative importance of exporting countries as the source of supply of our meat imports. Between 1938 and 1949 the proportion of mutton and lamb supplies drawn from the Commonwealth increased slightly; total supplies from New Zealand show a considerable increase offsetting a fall in Australian exports. In the group of foreign countries supplies of mutton and lamb from Argentina in 1949 were higher both in total quantity and as a proportion of total supplies, but this increase was more than offset by decreased supplies from other South American countries. Of total imports of mutton and lamb in 1949, 84 per cent was consigned from Commonwealth countries, in marked contrast to carcase beef and veal imports, of which over 70 per cent were drawn from foreign sources. The only suppliers of substantial quantities of carcase beef and veal who have maintained exports at near or above the 1938 level are New Zealand and Uruguay. Imports from Argentina, a country that supplies nearly two-thirds of our pre-war imports in this category have been reduced in 1949 to just over 60 per cent of the 1938 figure, while imports from Australia in 1949 were less than one-half the pre-war level- The net result of these changes is that in 1949, of a greatly reduced quantity of total imports of beef and veal, a slightly higher proportion is drawn from foreign sources. The overall supply position with regard to beef and veal is much less favourable than for mutton and lamb, and not only have total supplies fallen to a much greater extent, but we are dependent upon non-Commonwealth countries for over 70 per cent of our imports of beef and veal compared with only 16 per cent of imports of mutton and lamb. If attention is con- fined to home supplies however it is with regard to mutton and lamb production that the position is more serious. In 1950 the total production of beef in the United Kingdom reached approximately 102 per cent of the pre-war level, but mutton and lamb production was still less than 70 per cent of pre-wdr. 279 The decline, both in total output and in relative importance of mutton and lamb and, to a less extent, of beef and veal production in this country since 1939 was the result of deliber- ate economic policy dictated by the necessity of producing the

TABLE 3 Per Cent. of Total United Kingdom Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Mutton and Lamb and Carcase Beef and Veal Consigned from Commonwealth and Foreign Countries 1938 and 1949

Mutton Beef and Lamb and Veal 1938 1949 1938 1949 °A °A °A 0/0 Comnzonwealth: New Zealand . 53-2 66-9 8-8 13-9 Australia . 27-5 17-1 19-5 14-7 Other . . 0-1 1-2 Total Commonwealth 80-8 84-0 29-5 28-6 Irish Republic 0-3 0-2 Foreign: Argentina . 12-9 14-8 60-2 59-2 Chile . . 2-9 0-9 Uruguay . 25 0-2 5-6 10-7 Other . . 0-6 0-1 4-7 1-3 Total Foreign 18-9 16-0 70-5 71-2 Total Imports . 100-0 100-0 100.0 100.0

* Negligible. Source: Commonwealth Economic Committee: Meat 1950. maximum quantity of arable products for direct human consumption, and of ensuring an adequate milk supply. This policy was implemented along two main lines; direct controls such as cropping orders and rationing of livestock feeding stuffs and, of equal or even greater importance, by the relative price levels fixed for different agricultural products. The powerful price incentive given to milk production, particularly during the war years, can be seen from Table 4. By 1942 milk prices stood at 184 per cent of their pre-war level compared with 150 per cent for fat sheep, 141 per cent for fat lambs and 153 per cent for wool. At the same time, barley stood at 381 per cent and wheat at 164 per cent. By 280 1945 milk had advanced to 202 per cent, but fat sheep to only 171 per cent, fat lambs 160 per cent, and wool had actually fallen to 152 per cent. The discouragement given to the keeping of sheep through the relatively low price level assigned to sheep products succeeded only too well, and there was a decline in sheep numbers throughout the country from a total of 17,949,000 sheep in England and Wales in the pre-war period to 12,596,000

TABLE 4 Agricultural Price Index (1936-38 = 100)

Fat Fat Fat Year Milk Cattle Sheep Lambs Wool Barley Wheat 1936-8 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1940 141 136 128 120 116 194 128 1941 166 141 138 129 135 270 149 1942 184 152 150 141 153 381 164 1943. 187 157 155 143 152 293 182 1944 197 160 161 149 152 254 195 1945 202 164 171 160 152 242 202 1946 217 173 184 168 150 240 192 1947 234 203 225 210 150 235 205 1948 246 223 253 227 212 270 244 1949 261 233 260 228 224 257 250 1950 275 238 270 277 273

* Not available. Source: Annual Abstract and Monthly Digest of Statistics. in 1945, and a further fall to 10,162,000 in 1947. Not all parts of the country however were affected equally, and the reduction in sheep numbers was most drastic, as indeed was the intention, in the lowland areas, particularly in the extremes of heavy grassland, where sheep were displaced by the needs of the dairy herd, and in light land arable districts where they gave way to increased crop production and dairying. The decline in the numbers of close-folded arable flocks that had been proceeding steadily during the inter-war years was virtually completed during this period. Sheep were also the chief sufferers from the contraction in the area of grassland in mixed farming districts following upon the ploughing-up campaign, where again they had to give way to the needs of the dairy herd. The severe reduction of the number of sheep kept in lqwland areas deprived the upland sheep rearers of a large part of 281 their market for store sheep, a position that was made even worse by the fact that sheep numbers in the hills were, by comparison, much better maintained. For upland farmers the possibility of substituting cash crops or dairy cows does not occur to the same extent as in lowland areas, and much of the land in the hills must carry sheep if it is to be productive. Nevertheless, a considerable number of producers in upland areas did enter the liquid milk market during, and since the war years, and where this was the case sheep numbers were generally reduced, especially on the smaller farms in marginal districts. It is clear however that the enforced concentration in these upland hill and marginal areas upon the production of cattle and sheep and wool, products for which distinctly unfavourable price levels were deliberately determined, resulted in farmers in these districts failing to get an adequate share in the increased returns accruing to agricultural producers as a whole. This was particularly true of those parts of the country now known as "marginal " farming areas. Farmers in these districts were denied, on the one hand, the benefits afforded hill farmers by the Hill Sheep and Cattle subsidies, and later the Hill Farming Act. On the other hand these areas are, by and large, suitable only for store sheep and cattle rearing, and producers were unable to derive any appreciable benefit from the higher prices of milk and arable sale crops. Had it been possible to treat this type of upland rearing area in a more equit- able manner during the war and early post-war years the special measures now proposed for increasing the productivity of marginal areas might have been less urgent. In 1947 however,for reasons now well known,a" change of emphasis "in the relative importance afforded by official price policy to the different agricultural products became necessary, and the Agricultural Expansion Programme of 1947-1952/53 was launched, one of the main objectives of which was to bring about an increase in the output of home-produced livestock products. In view of the low level to which sheep numbers had fallen since 1939 the expansion programme envisages a smaller increase in the production of mutton and lamb than for other livestock products. Whereas the target figure in 1952/53 for beef and veal is set at 110 per cent of the pre-war level, that for mutton and lamb is only 83 per cent. No doubt the fact that mutton and lamb imports have increased since 1939 and come to the extent of 84 per cent from Commonwealth countries, whereas imports of beef and veal have not only fallen to 63 per cent of the pre-war level, but are consigned to the extent 282 has of over 70 per cent from non-Commonwealth countries supplies of made the question of increased home-produced supplies of beef of greater urgency than an increase in home mutton and lamb. products The main incentive for this expansion of livestock especially in took the form of an increase in the price level, products. The relation to the price of other agricultural turning point. price revision of August 1947 marked the sheep (Table 4) Between 1946 and 1947 the price index for fat = 100), increased by no less than 41 points to 225 (1936-8 the low level of although the index of wool prices remained at the same 150, three points below the level of 1942. During 30 points, but period the index of fat cattle prices advanced by 17 points. the increase in the price index for milk was only prices 1948 a further sharp advance in fat sheep During and raising the index by 28 points, with fat cattle occurred, By milk indices increasing by 20 and 12 points respectively. compared with 1950 the index price for fat sheep stood at 270 273. The need milk 275, fat cattle 238, barley 277 and wheat sheep had at last for a drastic improvement in the price level of this recognition received clear and significant recognition, and of 1951 which was still further emphasised in the price review of fat sheep, for provides, apart from an increase in the price an average of a very large increase in the price of wool from 2s. 3d. per lb. in 1950 to 6s. per lb. in 1951. wool will Although the increased prices for sheep and in sheep certainly prove adequate to encourage an increase at the expense, numbers in the upland rearing districts, possibly upon the in part at least, of cattle, the extent of the effect thing to engineer lowland farm is less predictable. It is one farms, but a drastic reduction in sheep numbers on lowland financial once the adjustment has been made and satisfactory thing to results achieved without sheep, it may be quite another small and bring sheep back to many of these farms. On the almost ex- medium sized farms, especially on heavier land, now any clusively engaged in milk production, it is doubtful whether in most worthwhile increase in sheep numbers can be expected; will tend to be cases the existence of a sheep flock of any kind and food re- regarded as an unjustifiable diversion of labour followers. In sources from the dairy herd and its essential folded flock light-land arable districts where the commercial at all it will has virtually disappeared, if sheep come back flocks almost certainly be as mainly grassland flocks, and before problem of of this type can be established some difficult 283 shepherding, fencing etc. will have to be overcome. A growing awareness of the need for sheep on this type of light land is, however, discernable, and with an adequate price incentive the difficulties should be by no means insurmountable. It is in the mixed-farming areas that a very considerable increase in sheep numbers can most hopefully be anticipated. Farms in these areas have available at the present time sufficient resources in the form of new leys and arable by-products to maintain a sheep flock either as a main enterprise or as a scavenger flock; the fencing problem is not a deterrent and part-time shepherding only is required. It may well be that mixed farming based on beef or dual-purpose cattle, sheep and arable cash crops will tend to bring about a reduction in the size of the substantial dairy herds maintained on many of the larger mixed farms, or even the complete elimination of the dairy herd in some cases.

Sheep Numbers in the West of England 1939-50 The overall reduction in the sheep population in England and Wales since 1939 has been accompanied by a marked change in the distribution of sheep throughout the country. The numbers of sheep in Wales for example have fallen considerably less than in England, while in England the numbers have fallen to a much greater extent in some counties than in others. Details of sheep numbers in the five West of England counties of the Bristol I Province are set out in Table 5. Between 1939 and 1947 total sheep in these five counties fell by 43.7 per cent, and in 1950 were still 39-1 per cent below the 1939 total. The reduction in numbers between 1939 and 1950 was slightly greater than for England and Wales as a whole, where the fall was equal to 31.3 per cent of the 1939 figure, and, whereas these five counties contained 8.4 per cent of the total number of sheep in England and Wales in 1938, by 1950 the proportion had fallen to 7.8 per cent. The separate counties show marked differences in the extent of the decline. In Hereford the sheep population in 1950 was more than 80 per cent of the pre-war level, compared with 60.9 per cent for the Province as a whole. Hereford is tradi- tionally a livestock area with sheep and cattle rearing in the western fringe and mixed arable and livestock farming over the remainder of the county. It had never been an important milk producing county and no very marked movement into milk production occurred during the war. The sheep population, 284 as a result, has been well maintained, especially in the upland regions to the west and north-west. Somerset, in contrast, is typically a dairying county and lost a third of its sheep between 1939 and 1950. This proportion would however have been materially greater but for the existence within the county boundaries of the upland rearing areas of Exmoor and the Brendon Hills where large numbers of sheep are maintained. In 1948, when sheep numbers in Somer- set as a whole had fallen to 60.4 per cent of the pre-war level, the sheep population of the "Exmoor " parishes, over much of which the Hill Sheep Subsidy is payable, was greater than in 1939, while sheep numbers on the adjoining Brendon Hills

TABLE 5 Total Sheep Recorded at the June Return in Five West of England Counties 1939, 1947 and 1950

Number of Sheep 1947 as 1950 as 1950 as County per cent per cent per cent 1939 1947 1950 of 1939 of 1939 of 1947 No. No. No. °A °A (Thousands) Hereford . 466 338 378 72.5 81.1 111.8 Somerset . 380 239 254 62.9 66.8 106.3 Worcester 209 104 111 49.8 53-1 106.7 Gloucester 315 132 158 41.9 50.2 119-7 Wiltshire . 219 81 67 37.0 30.6 82-7 Total . 1,589 894 968. 56.3 60.9 108.3

were more than 80 per cent of pre-war. In 1948 about 35 per cent of the total sheep in Somerset were to be found in these western upland districts. In both Worcester and Gloucester sheep numbers have been roughly halved since 1939, but the most serious drop has occurred in Wiltshire where only 30.6 per cent of pre-war numbers were recorded in 1950. Wiltshire is divided between the heavy lowlands of the Wiltshire Vale, where dairying predominates, and the chalk Downlands where in pre-war years the system of farming was based on corn, sheep and dairying. It is virtual elimination of the commercial folded flocks from the Downs during the war and post-war years that has been mainly responsible for the steep decline in sheep numbers in Wiltshire since 1939. It is interesting to note that in the neighbouring county of Dorset, where there is the same division 285 into heavy lowland and chalk downs, sheep numbers in 1950 have also fallen to less than one-third of the pre-war level. Since 1947, in England and Wales as a whole, the sheep population has recovered somewhat from the low level reached in that year; at June 1950 total sheep numbers were 21-6 per cent higher than at the corresponding date in 1947. In none of the five western counties however has the recovery been as great as for the country as a whole. In Gloucester, sheep numbers in 1950 were 19-7 per cent above the 1947 level, for Hereford they were 11-8 per cent above, while both Somerset and Worcester recorded increases of between 6 and 7 per cent. In contrast to these increases there has been a further marked decline since 1947 in the numbers of sheep in Wiltshire, which, in 1950, were 17-3 per cent below the 1947 level. In the adjoining and similar county of Dorset the fall since 1947 has been even greater, namely 19-0 per cent. It is against this background of a severe decline in the sheep population between 1939 and 1947, and a partial recovery since, which however still leaves total sheep numbers in these five counties in 1950 at only 60-9 per cent of the pre-war figure, that it was decided to carry out a series of investigations into the economics of sheep production in the West of England. It has been in the lowland areas that the most serious decline in the numbers of sheep kept has occurred, and, if anything approaching the pre-war level of sheep population is to be regained, it is to the lowlands that we must look primarily for the increase. An increase in the number of sheep reared in upland districts, particularly in the marginal areas, can be confidently anticipated, but unless the demand for draft ewes and store sheep from the lowlands increases, any expansion in sheep numbers in the hill and marginal areas will lack a firm and enduring foundation, and is unlikely to be sustained. However, before any marked expansion can take place in the lowlands, an increased supply of sheep must be forthcoming from the rearing areas, and it is for this reason that the first stage of the investigation has been concerned with the cost of production of store lambs in the upland areas of south-west Somerset.

286 The Cost of Rearing Store Lambs in the Upland Areas of South-west Somerset 1949/50 The south-west Somerset uplands consist of two contiguous but distinct areas, the Brendon Hills and Exmoor. Together they form an isolated region at a general elevation of between 800 and 1,400 feet, but with some points rising above this of, level. To the east and south-east these hills rise steeply out and are sharply distinguished from the fertile vales of Williton and Taunton; to the north they are bounded by the.Bristol grad- Channel, while to the west and south-west they merge ually into the hilly country of north Devon. Over the whole thin area the soils, derived from the Devonian formation, are and stony, and, especially upon Exmoor, much is podsolised and of poor quality. As a result of elevation and exposed Exmoor, situation, climatic conditions, again especially upon and are unfavourable, with high rainfall, low temperatures com- liability to heavy falls of snow. The growing season mences late, and winter conditions arrive considerably earlier than in the lowlands only a few miles away.

THE SAMPLE • This investigation into store lamb production costs com- menced on 1st November, 1949, and covered the twelve month data period to 31st October, 1950. The farms on which costing the has been obtained fall into two groups corresponding to natural division of the district into hill and marginal areas.

MARGINAL GROUP are This group consists of sixteen farms of which fourteen below located in the Brendon Hills and two in the Exe valley sense Winsford. The area throughout is a marginal area in the in which the term "marginal " is now generally understood, where i.e., upland areas intermediate between hill and lowland hand, stock-rearing is the main enterprise but which, on the one pro- cannot grow the range of cash crops nor engage in milk other duction to the extent possible in the lowlands, and, on the and hand, cannot participate in the benefits of the Hill Sheep Cattle Subsidies- There has, it is true, been some incursion Hills, since 1939 into milk-selling among farms on the Brendon usually particularly on the fringes of the district, but this is to engaged in, especially on the larger farms, as an adjunct 287 cattle-rearing, and the district is still predominantly a livestock rearing area. Generally speaking, the farms in this district lie at an elevation of 800-1,000 feet, but in some areas run to well over the 1,000 foot level. Average rainfall increases from east to west from 40 to 50 inches per annum. In the land classifica- tion scheme of the Reconstruction Research Group of Bristol University most of the land in this area is classified as Major Category II with III, and land at the highest elevation as Major Category III. HILL GROUP This group consists of fourteen farms all of which are located upon Exmoor, which, for the purpose of this investigation, is taken to be the upland area of west Somerset lying between the Dunster-Dulverton main road to the east, and Devon county boundary to the west and south. It is an area of high moorland at a general elevation of 1,000-1,400 feet, rising in some areas to over 1,500 feet. It is intersected by narrow river valleys where many of the farmsteads are located at an elevation of around 800-1,000 feet. Both Hill Sheep and Cattle subsidies are payable on the great majority of Exmoor farms, and the production of milk for sale is much less common than in the Marginal Group. Average rainfall ranges from 50 to over 60 inches per annum on Exmoor and all factors of elevation, exposure, temperature and soil conditions are distinctly less favourable than upon the Brendon Hills. Land in this district falls mainly into Major Category III with a lesser proportion of Major Category III with II at lower altitudes in the river valleys.

ACREAGE AND CROPPING DATA The average acreage of crops and grass land (i.e. excluding rough grazings) was 164 acres for the sixteen farms in the Marginal Group and 210 acres for the fourteen farms in the Hill Group. Of these totals 24-3 per cent was in tillage in the Marginal Group compared with 14-7 per cent in the Hill Group, while of the tillage acreage 51 per cent in the former group was under a cereal crop and 45 per cent in the latter. Cereal crops in both groups were for feeding, and 75 per cent of cereals in the Marginal and over 87 per cent in the Hill Group consisted of oats or dredge corn (oats and barley). All farms in the Marginal Group grew some feeding corn, but two farms in the Hill Group, situated in a very exposed part of Exmoor, grew none at all.

288 Although the acreage devoted to feeding corn was greater than that utilised for the production of root and green fodder crops in the Marginal Group, the relative importance of the two types of foodstuffs .is reversed under the less favourable conditions of the hill farms. However, both the acreage and the proportion of the farm devoted to roots and green fodder is higher in the Marginal Group. In both groups common

TABLE 6 Average Acreage of Crops and Grassland Per Farm at 4th June, 1950, and Per Cent of Total Crops and Grass

• Marginal Group Hill Group

Acres % Acres % TILLAGE: (1) Cereals 20.3 12.4 13.9 6.6 (2) Roots and Green Fodder (a) Potatoes • 1.2 0.7 1-1 O5• (b) Mangolds . 0.9 0.6 0-7 0.4 (c) Turnips • 11-1 6.7 11-1 5-3 (d) Swedes . • 1.5 0.9 1-5 0.7 (e) Kale • • 1.0 0.6 1-5 0.7 Arable Silage 2.6 1.6 - - (f) 0-5 (g) Other • 1.3 0.8 1.0 Total Roots and Green Fodder 19.6 11.9 16.9 8-1

TOTAL TILLAGE 39.9 . 24.3 30.8 14-7

GRASSLAND: (1) For mowing . 29-3 17-8 29.9 14-2 (2) For grazing . 95.2 57.9 149.2 71-1 85-3 TOTAL GRASSLAND . 124-5 75.7 179-1 CROPS AND GRASS . 164.4 100.0 2099. 100.0 TOTAL - ROUGH GRAZING:* • 21.2 - 309.9 t TOTAL FARM ACREAGE 185.6 519.8

* Includes Woods and Waste. Common Rights. t Ten farms only: remaining four farms have

turnips, grown for sheep keep, formed the main crop in this category, other roots and green fodder being of only secondary importance, and mainly grown for winter feed for cattle. Total grassland accounts for 75.7 per cent of the acreage of crops and grass in the Marginal Group and 85-3 per cent in the Hill Group, and the latter group sets aside a considerably smaller proportion of its grassland for mowing. Of the total 289 grassland, 45.5 per cent in the Marginal Group and 52-2 per cent in the Hill Group was recorded in the 4th June Returns as being temporary grass. First year leys averaged 8 per cent of total grassland and 6 per cent of the total area of crops and grass in the Marginal Group and 8-2 per cent and 7 per cent respectively in the Hill Group. These first year leys consist of leys sown under corn in 1949, and grass seeds sown with rape, or arable silage, or directly seeded in 1950, and there are significant differences between the two groups in the relative importance of the different methods of ley establishment.

Marginal Hill First Year Leys, 1950 Group Group Acres % Acres % Sown under corn 1949 . 100 67 541 27 Sown with rape 1950 . . . 25 17 1511 73 Sown with arable silage 1950 11 7 — — Direct seeding 1950 . . 13 9 — — — — — — 149 100 206 100

There were 9.9 acres of first year seeds per farm on average in the Marginal Group and 14-7 acres in the Hill Group, and, whereas 67 per cent of these leys were established under a nurse crop of corn in the former group, only 27 per cent were so established in the latter group, where 73 per cent were sown down with rape. The preference for seeding of grassland with rape shown by the Hill Group lies not only in the risk attaching to the establishment of grass under a nurse crop of corn in an area of very high rainfall, but also in the necessity of having some succulent and productive grazing available for lambs after weaning. In the figures relating to the cropping of the farms set out in Table 6 all first year leys, except those sown with an arable silage mixture have been included as grassland. If, however, those established with rape or by direct seeding in 1950 are regarded as tillage, the total acreage of tillage per farm is increased from an average of 39.9 to 42.5 acres in the Marginal Group, and from 30-8 to 41-6 acres in the Hill Group, and the percentage of tillage becomes 25-8 per cent and 19-8 per cent respectively in the two groups. Apart from the acreage of crops and grass there remains the area of rough grazings to be taken into account, and it is here that the biggest and most important difference between the two groups is shown. In the case of the Marginal Group rough grazings consist of areas of steep or otherwise inaccessible 290 land scattered throughout the farm itself, and averaging 21 acres per farm. Rough grazings in the case of the Exmoor Hill farms however fall in a different category entirely, and play a vital part in the general economy of the farm. These rough grazings generally take the form of an enclosed allotment of moorland in the sole occupation of one farmer, and they are usually, but not necessarily, contiguous to the farm proper. Ten of the fourteen farms in the Hill Group had rough grazing of this type with an average area of.310 acres; the remaining four farms in this group had grazing rights on various Com- mons on the moor. Including rough grazings, the total farm area averaged 186 acres in the Marginal Group of which 114 per cent is rough grazing, and 520 acres in the Hill Group of which 59.6 per cent is rough.

RENT TABLE 7 Average Rent Per Farm and Per Acre

Marginal Group Hill Group Per Per Per Per Farm Cent Farm Cent

AVERAGE RENT PER FARM: (a) Farmhouse, Build- ings and Cottages 26.4 13-3 29-4 13-6 (b) Crops and Grass 167-2 84-0 144-3 67-1 (c) Rough Grazings . 5-4 2-7 41-4 19-3 TOTAL RENT • • • 199-0 100-0 215-1 100-0 AVERAGE RENT PER ACRE: s. d. s. d. (a) Crops and Grass . 20 4 13 9 (b) Rough grazings . 5 1 3 1

The average total rent per farm was £199 for the Marginal Group and £215 for the Hill Group, of which 2.7 per cent in the former and 19.3 per cent in the latter is accounted for by rough grazings. The average rental value per acre for crops and grass alone was 20s. 4d. in the Marginal Group and 13s. 9d. in the Hill Group; the rental value of rough grazings was assessed at an average figure of 5s. ld. and 3s. 1 d. per acre respectively for the two groups. Farms in the Exmoor Hill Group consist typically of about 200 acres of enclosed farm associated with a further 300 acres 291 of moorland grazing, compared with a total area of under 200 acres for farms in the Brendon Hills Marginal Group, of which less than 10 per cent consists of scattered areas of rough grazing within the boundaries of the farm itself. The lower rent per acre of crops and grass, and the much higher proportion of rough grazings in the Hill Group are witness to the lower productivity of the land in this group, while the different pattern of land utilisation reflects the less favourable soil, climatic and topographical conditions .on Exmoor. As a result the Hill Group has a considerably higher proportion of the area of crops and grass under grassland, produces only about half as• much feed corn, a third less roots and green fodder, and cuts about one-fifth less acreage for hay. The Hill Group however has, despite the lower proportion of crops, a higher proportion of grass land in first year leys, which are generally established by direct seeding with rape. Although these two districts, Exmoor and the Brendon Hills, are separated only by the Dulverton-Dunster road, and although both are engaged primarily in sheep and cattle rearing, yet, in their economic and geo-physical conditions, they form two distinct areas.

THE BREEDING FLOCK Average Size of Flock. The average number of breeding ewes per flock at 1st November, 1949, when the flocks had been made up for the ensuing year, was 113 in the Marginal Group and 231 in the Hill Group. The distribution of the flocks by size groups was as follows:

Number of Ewes 1-50 51- 101- 151- 201- 251- 301- per flock: 100 150 200 250 300 350 Number ofFlocks Marginal . . 3 5 5 1 2 Hill • • 3 1 5 2 3

No flock in the Hill Group contained less than 100 breeding ewes, whereas one-half of the flocks in Marginal Group fall within this category, and three flocks consisted of less than 50 ewes. In the Hill Group ten of the fourteen farms had flocks of more than 200 ewes, and three of these had more than 300. Only two of the sixteen flocks in the Marginal Group had more than 200 ewes and none had more than 250 ewes. 292 Age of Ewes. In Table 8 the average number of ewes per flock within each age group is set out.

TABLE 8 Average Number of Breeding Ewes Per Flock by Age-group, and as Per Cent of Total

Marginal Group Hill Group

No. % No. % Breeding Ewes Two-tooth Ewes . 34 29-8 79 34-2 Four-tooth Ewes . 28 24-9 61 26-4 Six-tooth Ewes . 27 24-1 61 26-4 Full-mouth Ewes . 24 21-2 30 13-0 Total Ewes . 113 100-0 231 100-0

Apart from full-mouth ewes, flocks in both areas tend to be maintained in regular age groups. The proportion of ewes in the full-mouth age group is lower in the Hill Group, owing to the policS7 on these farms of selling out six-tooth and full- mouth ewes for further breeding. On the other hand the Marginal Group is not a homogeneous group from this point of view; whereas the majority of flocks are, wholly or in part, self-maintained for ewe stock, four of the sixteen farms in this group purchased all their replacements, and this has tended to inflate the proportion of ewes in the full-mouth category. Breed of Eivcs. On the more exposed parts of Exmoor the comparative severity of climatic conditions largely restricts the type of sheep that can be maintained to recognised hill breeds. Of the sheep kept by the farms in the Hill Group all are either of the Exmoor Horn breed or. derived from this breed. Exmoor Horns accounted for 91.5 per cent of breeding ewes in this group, and eleven out of the fourteen farms kept no other breed. On two farms some Devon Closewool ewes were kept as subsidiary to a main horn flock, and these accounted for 4.6 per cent of the total breeding ewes in the group: the remaining farm kept a flock of Exmoor Horn x Cheviot ewes accounting for 3.9 per cent of the total. The less extreme climatic conditions of the Brendon Hills permit a much wider choice of sheep breeds, and the number of breeds and crosses found among the sixteen flocks of the Marginal Group contrasts sharply with the much more uniform breeding policy shown among the Hill flocks, The influence of 293 the local Exmoor Horn breed predominates in the Marginal Group also, where all the breeding ewes are derived either from the Horn direct or via the Closewool. In this group however no breed or cross accounts for more than 23-2 per cent of the total breeding ewes, a proportion reached only by the Closewool. Next in importance is the Closewool x Ex- moor Horn with 21-7 per cent, followed by pure-bred Exmoor TABLE 9 Percentage of Total Ewes in Hill and Marginal Groups; by Breed

Marginal Hill Breed of Ewe Group Group 0/0 0/0 Devon Closewool 23-2 4.6 x Hampshire Down. 15-4 x Exmoor Horn . . 21-7 X Devon Longwool . 7-4 X Suffolk . . . . 5.0 x Border Leicester . 2.8 Exmoor Horn • • 18.4 91.5 x Dorset Down . 6.1 x Cheviot . 3.9 100.0 100.0

Horns which accounted for 18-4 per cent of total breeding ewes. The Closewool x Hampshire Down was a popular cross and ewes of this cross accounted for over 15 per cent of the total breeding ewes, but no other cross accounted for more than 7-4 per cent. Altogether, two pure breeds and six crosses were represented among the breeding ewes in the Marginal Group and the same two pure breeds, but only one cross in the Hill Group; of total ewes in the former group over 50 per cent are cross-bred compared with under 4 per cent in the latter group. With regard to the individual flocks, these consisted of one single breed or cross only in nine cases in the Marginal Group and eleven cases in the Hill Group. Six farms in the former group and three in the latter had flocks composed of two breeds, or two crosses, or one pure breed and one cross, and one flock in the Marginal Group consisted of ewes of three distinct breeds or crosses. BREED OF RAMS In the two groups combined, ten different breeds of ram were maintained; five breeds were met with only in the Mar- 294 ginal Group, three breeds only in the Hill Group and two breeds were common to both groups. These two local breeds, the Exmoor Horn and Devon Closewool accounted for 95.3 per cent of all rams in the Hill Group and 51.4 per cent in the Marginal Group. Five breeds, the Suffolk, Border Leicester, Oxford Down, Dorset Horn and Southdown were

TABLE 10 Breed of Rams, as Per Cent of Total in Hill and Marginal Groups

Marginal Hill Breed of Ram Group Group °A 0/0 Exmoor Horn — 18-9 88-4 Devon Closewool 32-5 6-9 Hampshire Down 27-0 Dorset Down . 13.5 Suffolk . . . 2-7 Border Leicester 2-7 Oxford Down. . 2-7 Southdown . . 1.2 Dorset Horn 1-2 Cheviot . . 2.3 100-0 100.0

represented by only one ram each, out of a total of 87 rams in the two groups combined, and in no case was a ram of any of these breeds the only ram used in the flock. Of the fourteen farms in the Hill Group only four were using rams of a breed other than the Exmoor Horn, and on three of these farms two- thirds of the rams in use were Horns; the remaining flock worked Cheviot and Closewool rams on Horn x Cheviot ewes. In contrast to the Hill Group, no single breed of ram in the Marginal Group accounted for as much as one-third of the total number of rams. Four breeds between them accounted for over 90 per cent of all rams in service, and of these the most popular was the Closewool (32-5 per cent) followed, in order, by the Hampshire Down (27 per cent), Exmoor Horn (18.9 per cent) and the Dorset Down (13.5 per cent). The two local breeds, the Closewool and Horn together accounted for 51.4 per cent of rams in the Marginal Group, and three Down breeds, the Hampshire, Dorset and Oxford between them for 43.2 per cent. 295 Ten farms in each group worked only one breed of ram; five in the Marginal Group and three in the Hill Group worked rams of two breeds, and one farm in each group had three different breeds of ram in service. BREEDING POLICY Of the sixteen farms in the Marginal Group only one was following a policy of one hundred per cent pure breeding, nothing but Closewool sheep being kept. Five other farms in this group had pure-bred Closewools as the main part of their flocks, but four of these had, in addition, some Exmoor Horn ewes also bred to Closewool rams; on the fifth farm the main part of the flock consisted of Closewool ewes, bred pure, with the remainder of the Closewool ewes crossed to an Oxford Down ram. Of the ten remaining flocks in this group, all with mainly cross-bred ewes, five were breeding to a ram of one of the parent breeds. In most cases Closewool x Down ewes are mated to the same Down ram, usually the Hampshire, but occasionally a Dorset Down or a Suffolk has been used. In three cases cross-bred ewes were being run with rams of a breed not represented in the ewe cross; in two cases a Hamp- shire ram with Devon Closewool x Devon Longwool ewes and in the third case Closewool x Exmoor Horn ewes with a Dorset Down ram. On the two remaining farms in the Marginal Group, Closewool x Horn ewes are kept and run with Closewool and Hampshire Down rams in one case, and Closewool, Exmoor Horn and Hampshire rams in the other case. Breeding policy on the Brendon Hills is undoubtedly resulting in a considerable degree of mongrelisation of sheep stocks. With mixed breeds of ewes and crosses kept in the same flock, crossed to rams not necessarily of a breed represented in the ewe stock, the production of a heterogeneous crop of lambs in this district is inevitable and, in point of fact, on the sixteen farms in the Marginal Group no less than fifteen different breeds or crosses of lambs (not counting reciprocal crosses) were produced in 1950. The position would be even more striking if, within any particular cross, the proportion represented by each of the original parent breeds were taken into account. Thus a cross bred Closewool/Hamp- shire Down lamb may represent the first cross between the two parent breeds, or it may equally be the result of crossing a Hampshire Down or a Closewool ram on the product of several generations of previous crosses between these two 296 Hampshire breeds. In other words the cross may be nearly all from what Down blood with only a relatively small residue largely Close- was originally a Closewool flock, it may be still repre- with a small proportion of Hampshire, or it may wool The sent any combination between these two extremes. whole, may be good or bad but, over the district as a results in the have resulted in a considerable lack of uniformity they as a offered at the store sheep sales, and by acting stock from to buyers, have led to a relatively poor demand deterrent This lowland farmers for store sheep raised in this district. complex result is doubly unfortunate because throughout this common structure of breeds and crosses there runs a clear and Iamb that line of policy, directed towards the production of a for a will meet present demands from lowland sheep farmers than that store sheep of greater size and earlier maturity have produced by local breeds. Different breeders however to meet different ideas as to what breed or cross is most likely large this demand, and it is out of this uncertainty that the arises. number of different crosses found on the Brendon Hills to In the case of the flocks of the Hill Group, the need the scope maintain at least a semi-hardy breed of sheep limits breeds or offered to breeders for the substitution of other of the crosses for the native Exmoor Horn sheep. Eleven of Horn fourteen flocks in this group are composed entirely apart sheep, bred pure. Two of the remaining flocks had, of from a main flock of Horns bred pure, a small number crossed Closewool ewes which were bred pure in one case and flock to a Dorset Down ram in the other. The remaining Exmoor represents the only attempt to replace the native breeding Horn with another hardy breed, and even in this case in 1949, policy has recently undergone a change. This flock, with represented about three generations of Cheviot crossing year an original ExmOor Horn ewe flock, but in the current only half these Horn x Cheviot ewes were mated with Cheviot rams, and the other half to Closewools. In many ways the Exmoor Horn may be said to be ideally one suited to its environment, but it nevertheless suffers from prescnt serious defect; it is a small sheep and the market under is conditions for store lambs or draft ewes of this breed severely limited and almost entirely local. As a consequence that prices tend to be low. On the other hand it is a breed to qualifies for the Hill Sheep subsidy, and this has helped on maintain its popularity. There are at the present time Exmoor however some breeders of Exmoor Horns, especially 297 among those with a considerable acreage of relatively sheltered enclosed land, who tend to question whether the subsidy of 5s. per ewe is adequate compensation for the loss of nearly 20s. per head in the lower price received for store lambs. The great majority of Horn breeders however remain firmly con- vinced that on the general run of Exmoor farms any breed less hardy than the local Horns would suffer severe losses and could not be adequately fed; they also point out that although the prices realised by store sheep of the local breed are admittedly relatively low, considerably larger numbers can be maintained on any given acreage than is the case with larger and less thrifty breeds. Method of Costing The costs involved in rearing a lamb to the store stage include the cost of the breeding flock (ewes and rams) for a twelve month period, together with the cost of the lambs from birth until reared. For the purpose of this investigation a lamb was regarded as reared at the end of October or, in the case of lambs sold earlier, at the date of disposal. The average age of reared store lambs on this basis wasjust over eight months in the Marginal Group and about three weeks less in the Hill Group. The method of assessment of the various cost items was as follows: Purchased Foods (including winter keep off the farm) entered at actual cost. Home-grown Foods (a) Folded Roots. A cost record relating to one field of roots grown for folding was obtained on each farm where this type of keep was provided for the breeding ewes. As, on most farms, the cost record covered only part of the acreage of folded roots grown for sheep, the average cost of production for the Marginal and the Hill Groups separately have been calculated, and the average cost applied to each individual farm according to the group in which it falls. This procedure has the effect of obliterat- ing any difference in cost between farms that arises from different levels of efficiency in the production of root crops. As however no inter-farm comparisons have been employed in this report, and all comparisons made are between the average costs on groups of farms, it is felt that little, if any, accuracy has been sacrificed in adopt- ing this procedure which facilitates the comparison of those costs more directly associated with the sheep enterprise. 298 No deduction for the manurial residues of folded roots has been made; the entire cost of growing the crop has been charged to sheep. (b) Other Home-grown Foods. Other Home-grown foods, which accounted for less than 6 per cent of total production costs in the Marginal Group, and under 4 per cent in the Hill Group have been entered at estimated average costs of production as follows: £ s. d. 0 per ton Mangolds (in clamp) . ▪ 1 8 Swedes (in ground) . • 1 14 0 • 1 15 0 22 22 Cabbage I/ ) • Hay (in rick) . • 6 5 0 0 Feeding Corn (whole) . . . 17 15 22 If (crushed) . . 19 5 0 ,, 22 been (c) Grazing. The actual cost of the grassland has determined for each farm and, in the case of the farms in the Hill Group, separate costs for moorland rough grazing and for the farm proper have been ascertained. The cost of aftermath grazing has been taken to be equal to one- third of the annual cost for those fields laid up for hay/silage. Of the total annual cost of grazing, four-fifths has been charged to the summer six-months and one-fifth to the winter. In the case of moorland grazing however the whole annual cost of the grassland has been charged to the summer period. The total cost of grazing, as ascertained, has been apportioned among the various classes of stock at grass according to the following scale of equivalents: Cow Equivalents Winter and Summer Cattle: 2 years old and over = 1-00 cow equivalent 1 to 2 years = 0-5 Under 1 year 0-25 22 12 Horses: Working horses = 1-25 Ponies = 0-85 22 22 Pigs: Over 6 months = 0-17 22 22 2 to 6 months = 0-10 2/ 22 Poultry: Geese ---= 0-06 2 2 22 Other poultry = 0-01 22 22 Sheep: WINTER SUMMER Exmoor Other Exmoor Other Horns Breeds Horns Breeds Over 1 year old 0-20 0-25 0-13 0-17 6 to 12 months 0-13 0-17 — — 2 to 6 months — — 0-07 0-09 299 Grazing by day only has been taken as equivalent to two-thirds of full-time grazing. Sheep folded on roots and running back to grass have been regarded as obtaining the equivalent, from a grazing point of view, of one- quarter of full-time grazing, provided that some grazing was in fact available from the grassland. Exmoor Horn sheep, which are distinctly smaller than other breeds maintained in this district, have been reckoned to consume 20 per cent less grass per head. Further, all sheep have been given a higher rating in terms of cow-equivalents in the winter six months than in the summer as they are able to make relatively better use of grassland during this period than other classes of stock. Field Costs. The total annual cost for each farm for hedging, ditching, guttering, upkeep of fences, gates, etc., has been ascertained, and charged to grazing, folded root crops, etc., on a flat rate per acre basis. For farms in the Hill Group, a separate estimate for the moorland in sole occupation has been obtained, and charged to moorland grazing. Implement Repairs and Depreciation. An estimated cost of repairs and depreciation of implements has been charged to grazing and folded root crops on a per acre basis which is dependent upon:

(1) Size of farm (crops and grass). (2) Type of crop.

The charge to grassland varied from 4s. to 5s. per acre and for root crops from 15s. to 24s. 9d. per acre according to the size of farm. The data upon which this charge is based has been derived from the Milk Cost Investigation and may possibly represent an over-estimate of the actual cost on these more extensively managed rearing farms. Depreciation of Sheep Equipment. A valuation of sheep equipment, hurdles, netting, hay racks, feeding troughs, dipping baths (excluding landlords' fixtures) shearing gear, etc., has been made and depreciation charged at 10 per cent. The cost of repairs for this equipment during the twelve months has also been obtained. The total cost of repairs and depreciation as ascertained has been apportioned between ewes, rams and lambs, and other sheep, i.e. the yearling ewes and wethers with which this investigation is not concerned. 300 Labour Costs (a) Manual. All manual work undertaken upon the sheep has been converted to an equivalent number of hours for adult male labour, and charged at the following rates: Ordinary time 2s. 3d. per hour Week-end overtime 3s. Od. „ Overtime at lambingf The hourly rate for ordinary time includes an allow- ance for men paid at above the minimum rate, farmers' share of insurance payments, and holidays with pay. (b) Horse. Working horses have been charged at Is. 3d. per hour, and riding ponies at 8d. per hour. (c) Tractor. The charge made for tractor work (exclusive of drivers' wages) is as follows: Medium wheeled tractor 4s. Od. per hour Crawler tractor 5s• 6d. ai COSTS OMITTED Costs omitted are as follows: (1) General Farm Overheads. (2) Management. (3) Interest on Capital. The fact that these costs are ommitted must be borne in mind when considering the level of margin shown between costs and returns.

RETURNS OMITTED In the case of the farmers in the Hill Group, payments received in respect of the Hill Sheep Subsidy have been omitted. The inclusion of this payment would add, on average, 4s. 9d. per ewe to the returns in this group. No subsidy is payable on any sheep in the Marginal Group.

Costs Valuation of Breeding Flock and Sheep Equipment In Table lithe average valuation of breeding ewes, stock rams, and of sheep equipment at 1st November, 1949, is set out per flock, per 100 ewes, and as a percentage of total valuation for each of the two groups. Flocks in the Marginal Group averaged 113 breeding ewes compared with 231 ewes per flock in the Hill Group. 301 The average valuation of sheep equipment relates to the share of total sheep equipment attributable to the breeding flock. Total sheep gear averaged £62.8 and £87.3 per flock. for the Marginal and Hill Groups respectively, and the proportion charged to the breeding flock £47.1 and £655

TABLE 11

Average Valuation of Breeding Flock and Sheep Equipment at 1st November, 1949 Per Flock and Per 100 Ewes by Groups

MARGINAL GROUP HILL GROUP Per Per 100 Per Per Per 100 Per Flock Ewes Cent Flock Ewes Cent AVERAGE VALUA- TION OF: Breeding Ewes . 677-3 600-0 89-2 1,194.4 517-4 90-0 Stock Rams . . 34-9 30-9 4-6 67-4 29-2 5-1 Equipment(Share) 47-1 41-8 6-2 65-5 28-4 4-9 Total . 759-3 672-7 100-0 1,327-3 575-0 100-0

The average valuation of the breeding flock and equipment was £759.3 per flock in the Marginal Group and £1,327.3 for the Hill Group, and £672-7 and £575.0 per 100 ewes for the two groups respectively. The breeding ewes accounted for approximately 90 per cent of the total valuation in both groups. The average value per head of breeding ewes at market values then current was £6 for the Marginal Group and rather lower at £5 3s. 6d. for the Hill Group. The average value of stock rams per 100 ewes was approximately £30 in both groups: there were, on average, 2-1 rams per 100 ewes in the Marginal Group and 2-7 in the Hill Group with an average value per ram of £15.1 in the former and f10.8 in the latter group. Nearly all rams in the Hill Group are of the local Exmoor Horn breed; there is a tendency for too many Horn rams to be bred in relation to the demand for them, with the result that the price at which they can be sold is rather on the low side. An analysis of the type and valuation of sheep equipment found on the two groups of farms is given in Table 12. All items of equipment have a higher valuation per flock in the Hill Group, but a lower value per 100 ewes; the much larger size of flock in this group affords greater opportunities 302 for the economic utilisation of equipment, especially for such items as mechanical clipping gear, dipping tanks, etc. In the Marginal Group clipping gear formed the most costly item of equipment, but in the Hill Group it took second place to folding gear (hurdles, netting, stakes). All farms in the Hill Group, and all but one in the Marginal Group possessed at least one set of mechanical clippers. Folding gear, together with hay

TABLE 12 Average Valuation of Sheep Equipment at 1st November, 1949 Per Flock and Per 100 Ewes by Groups

MARGINAL GROUP HILL GROUP Per Per Per 100 Per Per 100 Per Flock Ewes Cent Flock Ewes Cent .A Equipment: Folding gear (a) Netting 11.0 9.7 17.4 19.4 8.4 22.2 (b) Hurdles 12.9 11.4 20.5 16.3 7.0 18.5 Total . . 23.9 21.1 37.9 35.7 15.4 40.7 Racks and Troughs 6.7 6.0 10.8 8.2 3.6 9.6 38.6 Clipping Gear . . 26.3 23.3 41-8 33.6 14.6 Other • 5.9 5-3 9.5 9.8 4-2 11-1 Total Equipment . 62.8 55.7 100.0 87.3 37-8 100.0

Share to Ewes. 47.1 41-8 65-5 28.4

racks and feeding troughs account for approximately one-half of the total valuation in both groups, and clipping gear for about 40 per cent. Other gear consists mainly of removable dipping tanks possessed by three farms in the Marginal Group and five in the Hill Group; other farms either had a permanent dipping bath as part of the landlord's equipment or dipped their sheep at neighbouring farms.

Average Cost and Return per Ewe put to Ram, and per Lamb Reared The average net cost per ewe presented in Table 13 represents the cost of maintaining the breeding flock for the twelve months from 1st November, 1949, to 31st October, 1950, together with the cost of rearing the 1950 lamb crop, divided by 303 the number of breeding ewes put to ram in the autumn of 1949 Returns from the breeding flock consist of the price realised by any lambs sold prior to 31st October and the estimated market value of those retained, together with the value of wool

TABLE 13 Average Cost and Return per Ewe put to Ram 1949-50

MARGINAL GROUP HILL GROUP Number of Flocks . . 16 14 Average Number of Ewes per Flock 113 231 (1) Foods and Grazing £ s. d. % £ s. d. % (a) Folded Roots 11 10 15-1 4 3 7-2 (b) Hand-fed Roots 210 3.6 1 4 2-3 (c) Cake and Corn 1 8 2-1 2 0.3 (d) Hay 5 0.6 10 1-4 Total Foods 16 9 21-4 6 7 11.2 (e) Grazing . . 1 2 8 28.9 15 11 27-2 Total Foods and Grazing 1195 50.3 1 2 6 38.4 (2) Labour . . 17 10 22.7 15 10 27.0 (3) Miscellaneous Cost . 3 6 4.5 2 4 4.0 (4) Flock Depreciation . 17 8 22.5 17 11 30.6 TOTAL COST PER EWE 3 18 5 100.0 2 18 7 100.0 LESS: Sales of Wool (Ewes, rams and lambs). 17 7 22.4 19 4 - 33-0 NET COST PER EWE . 3 0 10 77.6 1 19 3 67.0 VALUE of lambs reared per ewe 4 11 11 3 17 4

MARGIN (Surplus) per ewe 1 11 1 1 18 1 shorn from the ewes, rams and lambs during 1950, again expressed per ewe put to ram. Total cost per ewe averaged £3 18s. 5d. in the Marginal Group and nearly £1 less in the Hill Group. Apart from a relatively slight saving on labour and miscellaneous costs, foods and grazing accounted for most of the difference in cost between the two groups; total foods were 10s. 2d. per ewe lower in the Hill Group and grazing costs nearly 7s. Od. per head lower. All items of food with the exception of hay, which is of negligible importance in both groups, were lower in the Hill Group, but the main difference lies in the cost of roots for folding which averaged 4s. 3d. per ewe in the Hill 304 and us. 10d. in the Marginal Group. Total foods and grazing at El 19s. 5d. per ewe accounted for 50.3 per cent of the total cost per ewe in the Marginal Group, but for only £1 2s. 6d. per ewe and 38.4 per cent of total cost in the Hill Group. Labour costs per ewe amounted to 17s. 10d. in the former group and 15s. 10d. per ewe in the latter. Miscellaneous costs were slightly lower in the Hill Group, and flock depreciation averaged just under 18s. Od. per ewe in both groups. Sales of wool from ewes, rams and lambs averaged 17s. 7d. per ewe in the Marginal Group and 19s. 4d. in the Hill Group. Wool sales, deducted from total costs, leaves an average net cost of £3 Os. 10d. per ewe for the Marginal Group and £1 19s. 3d. for the Hill Group. The net cost per ewe is offset by the value of the lambs reared; this amounted to £4 1 ls.11d. per ewe in the Marginal Group and £3 17s. 4d. in the Hill Group, leaving a surplus margin of £1 1 ls. 1 d. per ewe in the former group and £1 18s. ld. in the latter. In Table 14 the figures are expressed in terms of the net cost and return per lamb reared. TABLE 14 Average Cost and Return per Lamb Reared

MARGINAL HILL GROUP GROUP

£ s. d. £ s. d. Average Net Cost per Ewe . 3010 1193 Lambs Reared per 100 Ewes 101 104 £ s. d. £s.d. Average: Value per Lamb Reared . 411 3 3148 Net Cost per Lamb Reared 3 0 4 1 17 10 Margin (Surplus) per lamb . 1 10 11 1 16 10

The number of lambs reared per 100 ewes put to ram averaged 101 in the Marginal Group and 104 in the Hill Group. Dividing the total cost of foods, grazing, labour, miscellaneous costs and flock depreciation, less wool sales, by the number of lambs reared in each group gives the net cost per lamb reared which averaged £3 Os. 4d. in the Marginal Group and El 17s. 10d. per lamb in the Hill Group. The average value of lambs reared was £4 1 ls. 3d. per head in the former group and £3 14s. 8d. in the latter, leaving a surplus margin of £1 10s. 11d, for each lamb reared in the Marginal 305 Group and El 16s. 10d. in the Hill Group. Thus, although the average value per head of lambs reared was considerably higher among flocks in the Marginal Group the average cost of producing each lamb was proportionately still higher, with the result that the margin both per ewe put to ram, and per lamb reared was appreciably lower in this group than in the Hill Group. Expressed as a percentage of total cost per ewe, the margin per ewe was equal to 39-6 per cent of total cost for the Marginal Group compared with 65 per cent for the Hill Group; the actual margin per ewe in the latter group was 22-5 per cent higher than in the former.

Analysis of Costs 1. Foods. In Table 15 the itemised costs offoods consumed per ewe is set out for each group.

TABLE 15 Average Cost of Foods per Ewe put to Ram

MARGINAL GROUP HILL GROUP cwt. £ s. d. cwt. £ s. d. (1) Folded Roots . 11 10 43 (2) Hand-fed Roots (a) Mangolds . . . 1-43 1 11 0-67 1 0 (b) Swedes and Turnips. 0-12 3 0-19 4 (c) Other Roots . 0-30 8 Total (a)—(c) 1-85 2 10 0-86 1 4 lb. lb. Home-grown Corn. . 4-90 10 . — Purchased Concentrates 3-41 10 0-52 2 Corn and Concentrates 8-31 1 8 0-52 2 Hay 5-77 5 12-01 10 Total Foods 16 9 67

All the foods included in Table 15 were consumed by the ewe-flock and rams; no lambs in either group received any hand feeding during the period under review. Folded roots accounted for approximately 71 per cent of total food costs (excluding grazing) in the Marginal Group and 65 per cent in the Hill Group; other foods were relatively of small importance: Hand-fed roots, mostly mangolds and nearly all fed during the lambing period averaged less than 2 cwt. per ewe in the Marginal Group and less than 1 cwt. per head in the Hill Group at a cost of 2s. 10d. and is. 4d. per ewe respec- 306

• averaged tively. Corn and purchased concentrates combined and only over 8 lb. per ewe in the Marginal Group slightly of lb. per head in the Hill Group. The average consumption and 12 lb. hay was under 6 lb. per ewe in the Marginal Group foods (i.e., foods per ewe in the Hill Group. Total hand-fed 11d, per ewe in other than folded roots) averaged in cost 4s. the Marginal and 2s. 4d. in the Hill Group. two groups The significant feature of food costs in the of the different however is not in the relative proportions . level of total types of foods fed, but in the markedly lower provision for the food costs in the Hill Group, and, as the main form of folded winter feeding of the breeding flock takes the differences in roots, it is in this item that the most important grown in the cost arise. The type and quantity of folded roots detail. two groups therefore merits consideration in some

Folded Roots Group and Fourteen of the sixteen farms in the Marginal provided folded eleven of the fourteen farms in the Hill Group grown for the roots for the ewe flock. The average acreage over all farms breeding flock amounted to 6.47 acres per farm per 100 former group and 5.96 in the latter. Expressed in the and the figures are 5-73 acres for the Marginal Group ewes over all 2-58 acres per 100 ewes for the Hill Group measured the number of breeding ewes in both groups; calculated over folded roots the ewes maintained on those farms providing ewes in the two figures are 6.01 acres and 3.31 acres per 100 groups respectively. per cent in Of the total acreage of folded roots grown, 78 Hill Group con- the Marginal Group and 92 per cent in the cent respectively sisted of common turnips, 6 per cent and 5 per and 16 per cent and 3 per cent of mixed roots. of Swedes for The cost of production of folded roots was determined out in Table 16. each group and the average per acre cost is set Marginal Total costs averaged £10 6s. 6d. per acre in the 7d. per acre for Group, and were more than £2 lower at £8 3s. Hill Group. the with the All items of cost are higher in the Marginal Group The most exception of implement costs and horse labour. of manures important differences relate to the higher cost Root crops in (nearly 20s. per acre), seed, rent and labour. drought of the both groups were adversely affected by the and the keeping summer of 1949, yields were below average The amount of quality, particularly of the turnips, was poor. 307 sheep keep provided by folded roots averaged 193 ewe-weeks per acre for the Marginal Group and 185 ewe-weeks for the Hill Group. These figures have been calculated after making adjustment for the smaller size of the Exmoor Horn ewes on the basis of 120 Horn ewes equivalent to 100 ewes of other breeds. The internal evidence to be derived from this investigation suggests, however, that the ratio between Exmoor Horn and other ewes is slightly higher and probably is between 125- 130 Horn ewes per 100 ewes of other breeds. This ratio is

TABLE 16 Average Cost of Production of Folded Roots Per Acre

MARGINAL GROUP HILL GROUP Number of Farms . . . 13 - 12 Number of Fields Costed . 14 Acreage Costed 12 . . . 821 961

£ s. d. s. Average Cost per Acre: d. Manures (net) . 3 14 3 Field Costs 2 14 5 . 12 3 9 11 Seed 10 0 Rent 5 7 1 2 1 13 Implements . 7 18 6 19 6 Sub-total . 6 17 1 5 3 0 hrs. Labour: hrs. (a) Manual 12.5 1 8 3 (b) 10.9 1 4 7 Horse . 1.4 1 9 3.2 (c) Tractor. 40 9.9 1 19 5 7.8 1 12 0 Total Labour 3 9 5 3 0 7 Total Cost . 10 6 6 8 3 7 well below the figure of 150 Horn ewes per 100 other ewes which is frequently claimed for the Exmoor Horn breed. The comparative figures for the number of ewe-weeks per acre suggests at first sight that the amount of sheep keep provided by each acre of folded roots was, on average, roughly the same in the two groups. In point of fact these figures illustrate the limitations of such factors as "ewe-weeks" which merely measure time spent on roots, and not the amount of feed available. Under conditions of scarcity of roots, and with no alternative sources of feed available, the folded roots were very carefully rationed to the sheep in order to make them 308 case of the Exmoor last out, and this was particularly true in the poorer than in the Hill Group where the root crop was much It is quite certain that Marginal Group on the Brendon Hills. folded roots was the amount of keep obtained by sheep from Group than would much more favourable to the Marginal of ewe-weeks appear from the comparison of the number average cost per carried per acre on the folded roots. The for Exmoor ewe-week in the Marginal Group was 10-26d. in the Hill Group Horn and 12-83d. for other breeds, and 8.48d. per ewe-week for Horn ewes. most important As far as folded roots are concerned the that the Marginal points distinguishing the two groups are the acreage and Group as a whole provided more than twice of sheep keep per possibly two-and-a-half times the tonnage quantity of folded 100 ewes in this form. The much smaller Group, together roots available to breeding ewes in the Hill foods (with the with the smaller quantities of all hand-fed of grassland all exception of hay), and the poorer quality smaller size of point to the conclusion that, even when the the average the Exmoor Horn ewe is taken into account, in the Hill Group standard of nutrition of the breeding ewes lower than is the during the winter period is very considerably is only to be case in the Marginal Group. This, of course, thrifty hill breed expected, and the compelling reason why a this district arises such as the Exmoor Horn is maintained in conditions which from the unfavourable climatic and soil limit the amount of keep that can be provided. Grazing Costs of grazing The cost of grazing per ewe, including the cost Marginal Group by rams and lambs, averaged Et 2s. 8d. in the division of this and 15s. 11d, per ewe in the Hill Group. The and between overall cost between ewes and rams, and lambs, follows: winter and summer six-month periods is as Average Cost of Grazing per Ewe put to Ram Marginal Group Hill Group £ s. d. % £ s. d. % 4 5 27-8 and Rams: Winter . . 5 6 24-3 Ewes 54-8 7 6 47-1 Ewes and Rams: Summer . . 12 5 11 11 74-9 Ewes and Rams . 17 11 79-1 Total: 20-9 4 0 25-1 Lambs: Summer . . 4 9 15 11 100.0 Total Grazing Cost . 2 8 100.0 cent in the Of the total grazing cost approximately 80 per Group was Marginal Group and 75 per cent in the Hill 309 accounted for by ewes and rams. The comparatively low proportion of cost incurred by the ewes in the latter group during the summer months arises from the fact that during most of this period they are on very cheap moorland grazing; the lambs in the Hill Group however are frequently retained on the farm proper after weaning and often graze specially sown mixtures of rape and grass seeds with the result that the cost of summer grazing for lambs in this group is relatively high. The detailed presentation of grazing costs involves some difficulties both of method and of terminology. The cost of grassland, i.e. the cost of growing grass, falls into two distinct but related categories. In the first place there are the production costs incurred on fields that are grazed throughout the twelve months, and all of the costs in this case are chargeable to grass for grazing. On the other hand, costs are incurred for the production of grass in fields which produce both a crop of hay/silage, and also aftermath grazing in the same twelve- month period; in this case the total cost incurred (excluding cutting and harvesting costs) during the year must be apportioned between the hay/silage and the aftermath grazing. Two-thirds of the total annual cost of such grassland has been taken to represent the cost of growing grass for hay/silage and the remaining one-third charged to the aftermath grazing. The cost of grazing, as distinct from the cost of grassland, is the sum of the annual cost of fields grazed throughout the year (referred to as pasture) and of one-third of the annual cost of hay/silage fields, i.e. the estimated cost of the grazing aftermath from such fields (referred to as hay/silage land). The total annual cost of grazing, ascertained as above, is apportioned between winter and summer six-month periods, and between the different classes of stock grazing during these periods. In the case of the grassland in these upland regions, four-fifths of the annual grazing cost has been charged to the summer six-months and one-fifth to the winter six-months, except that, in the case of moorland grazing in the Hill Group, the total annual cost of this type of grazing has all been charged in the summer period. In Table 17 the average cost per acre is set out for pasture for the Marginal and Hill Groups and, in the latter case, the pasture is divided into that on the farm proper (Farm) and moorland grazing (Moor). Per acre costs for the Marginal Group and for the Hill Group (Farm) are calculated per adjusted acre arrived at by reducing any rough grazing to an equivalent number of acres of ordinary grassland according 310 has a to the rental value of each, i.e. if the rough grazing 20s. per rental value of 5s. per acre and the ordinary grassland are acre, then it is assumed that four acres of rough grazing ordinary equivalent in productive capacity to one acre of the grassland. In the case of the Hill Group (Moor) however moorland. per acre costs are calculated on the actual acreage of is set In Table 18 the average cost per acre of hay/silage land is on the out for the two groups. In this case the calculation cut for basis of the actual acreage as no rough grazing was hay/silage in either group. TABLE 17 Average Cost per Acre of Pasture Land

HILL GROUP MARGINAL GROUP* Farm* Moor

£ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. (1) Labour: . 3 3 3 1 — Manual — Horse . 2 — Tractor . 20 1 8 — Total Labour 5 5 49 (2) Manures: Farm Yard Manure 1 5 • 7 Lime 46 6 Artificials . 52 3 7 Total Manures 11 1 4 8 6 3 1 (3) Rent 1 0 3 13 (4) Machinery Deprecia- 4 8 411 — tion 11 (5) Field Costs . . 12 0 9 8 (6) Ley Establishment 10 8 18 1 Total Cost . 3 4 1 .2 15 7 4 0

*Adjusted Acreage. Total labour costs per acre on Pasture land were comparable especially in the two groups, but the cost per acre of manures, lime, was distinctly higher in the Marginal Group. The amount of manure applied to pasture land even in the Marginal Group compares unfavourably however with that in this applied on a group of lowland dairy farms investigated in province.* The total cost of manures applied to Pasture of Grassland Some Economic Aspects of the Cost of Grassland and * M. B. Jawetz and Management in the Bristol I Province in 1948-49, by Teresa M. Beynon. 311 the Hill Group was distinctly low, and consisted very largely of basic slag and lime. In both groups the amount of straight nitrogenous fertiliser used was insignificant. The cost of rent per acre is naturally higher in the Marginal Group, and field costs (hedging, ditching, etc.) were also higher in this group. The very heavy expenditure necessarily in curred by farmers in these S.W. Somerset uplands in the main- tenance of hedges, banks, ditches, fences, gates, etc., is illustrated by the fact that the Field costs per acre averaged 12s. Od. in the Marginal Group and 9s. 8d. in the Hill Group, compared with a corresponding cost of 7s. 2d. per acre for a group of lowland dairy farms in this province.t Field costs, expressed as a percentage of the rent of the land averaged 59 per cent in the Marginal Group and 72 per cent for the Hill Group, compared with only 22 per cent in the case of the lowland farms. Not only is the actual cost per acre of Field costs considerably higher in the upland districts of the Brendon Hills and Exmoor, but the position is greatly aggravated by the fact that the productivity of the land, out of which this burden must be met, is considerably lower in these districts than in the lowlands. The cost of ley establishment was much higher in the Hill Group at 18s. 1 d. per acre of pasture compared with 10s. 8d. per acre in the Marginal Group. The average cost of establishing one acre of new ley was £7 12s. 7d. in the Marginal Group and £11 Os. 8d. per acre in the Hill Group. The higher cost in the latter case is attributable to the fact that whereas 73 per cent of new leys in this group are established by direct seeding with rape, only 26 per cent were so established in the Marginal Group. Not only, however, is the cost per acre of new leys higher in the Hill Group but the proportion of first year leys to total grassland (excluding rough grazings) was also slightly higher in this group. Total pasture costs averaged £3 4s. 1 d. per acre in the Marginal Group and £2 15s. 7d. per acre in the Hill Group. The cost of the moorland grazing associated with the farms in the Hill Group averaged 4s. per acre, of which over three- quarters was accounted for by rent and the remainder by Field costs; manuring and cultivation of the moor is carried out entirely by grazing stock. The average annual cost of hay/silage land (excluding all cutting and harvesting costs) was £4 5s. 2d. per acre for the t Investigation into the Economics of Milk Production, 1949-50 unpublished data). 312 Marginal Group and £4 19s. Od. per acre for the Hill Group and in both cases, but particularly in the case of the latter group, this cost is considerably higher than for the corresponding cost of pasture land. The higher cost of hay/silage land is mainly due to heavier applications of manures and, especially in the case of the Hill Group, of farm-yard manure. Harrowing and rolling of the grassland was also more frequently undertaken in the case of hay/silage land. Farmers in the Hill Group set aside a considerably smaller

TABLE 18 Average Cost per Acre of Hay/Silage Land*

MARGINAL HILL GROUP GROUP

£ S. d. £ S. d. (1) Labour Manual 511 92 Horse . 6 10 Tractor. 45 5 8 Total Labour 10 10 15 8 (2) Manures Farm-yard Manure 7 7 1 0 0 Lime . . . 11 4 0 Artificials . . 15 10 13 8 Total Manures 1 4 4 1l7 8 (3) Rent 1 0 3 13 9 (4) Machinery . 5 1 50 (5) Field Costs . . 12 1 9 6 (6) Ley Establishment 12 7 17 5 Total Cost . 4 5 2 419 0

* Excluding all cutting and harvesting work. proportion of their total grassland acreage (excluding rough grazings) for mowing, but the manuring of the mowing land is appreciably heavier than is the case in the Marginal Group. Indeed, the manuring of the hay/silage land in the Hill Group compares favourably with manuring practice for this type of grassland on the lowland farms previously mentioned. In very few cases however does the application of nitrogenous fertilisers to mowing land approach the level that could be economically utilised, due, it appears, to farmers' almost universal, traditional distrust of this type of fertiliser. The relatively heavy applications of lime and slag which are a feature of manuring practice in both Marginal and Hill Groups 313 should provide a basis for the safe application of fairly heavy dressings of nitrogenous fertiliser, while the heavy rainfall in these districts made the need for such fertilisers the greater. Farmers in the Marginal Group both cultivated and man- ured their pasture land more intensively than in the Hill Group, but in the case of hay/silage land the position is reversed. However, the average expenditure per acre over all grassland, i.e. pasture and hay/silage land combined, but excluding harvesting costs, was £3 9s. Od. per acre for the Marginal Group and £3 2s. 7d. per acre for the Hill Group (excluding moorland). The cost of rent and manures was higher in the Marginal Group, but the cost of ley establishment considerably lower. The cost per acre of grazing, arrived at after deducting the proportion of total grassland costs attributable to the hay or silage crops, and adjusting the total acreage of grazing to allow for the lower grazing value of aftermath grass, averaged £3 10s. 9d. for the Marginal Group and £2 18s. 2d. per acre for the Hill Group. These figures compare with a corresponding cost of over £4 10s. Od. per acre found for the group of lowland dairy farms. Stock grazing during the summer six months, expressed as cow-equivalent weeks, averaged 16.4 units per acre in the Marginal Group .(i.e. each acre of grazing land carried the equivalent of one cow grazing night and day for 16.4 weeks during the six months), and 10.4 units per acre in the Hill Group on the farm proper. In addition, in the Hill Group, each acre of moorland grazing supplied 3.9 cow-equivalent weeks of grazing during the summer six months; of the total grazing stock on farms in this group during the summer 45.5 per cent, in terms of cow-equivalents, was carried on the moorland. In both groups the intensity of stocking of enclosed farm land was approximately 50 per cent greater in the summer than in the winter. The average cost of grazing one ewe for one week was as follows: Average Cost of Grazing per Ewe-week Marginal Hill Group Group Farm Moor d. d. d. Winter Six Months . 3.69 2.30 — Summer Six Months . 6.66 7.22 0.90 The average cost of grazing per ewe per week on enclosed farm land during the winter period was 3.69d. for the Marginal 314 Group and 2-30d. per head for the smaller Exmoor Horn ewes in the Hill Group. The corresponding figures for the summer six months was 6.66d. and 7.22d. respectively for the two groups. Compared with a grazing cost per ewe per week during the summer of 7-22d. on the farm proper in the Hill Group, summer grazing was provided by the moorland for only 0.90d. per ewe per week. The actual average cost per ewe-week of summer grazing in the Hill Group, taking farmland and moorland together, was 3.82d. compared with a cost of 6.66d. per ewe per week for the Marginal Group. It certainly cannot be assumed however that the ewes in the Hill Group actually obtained as much nutritional value from a week's grazing on the moor as did the ewes in the Marginal Group from grazing enclosed farmland; moorland grazing is undoubtedly obtained at a very low cost, but a considerable proportion of the difference in the cost of grazing per ewe per week between the two groups represents the lower value of moorland grazing. The difference in the cost per lamb of summer grazing between the two groups is much less than in the case of the ewes. The average cost of grazing per lamb per week was 2.23d. in the Marginal Group and 1-78d. in the Hill Group. Whereas the ewes in the Hill Group spend most of the summer period on the moor, the lambs after weaning are generally retained on the farmland proper, especially those that it is planned to sell as stores, and often graze on a specially sown crop of rape and grass. The overall cost of grazing for ewes, rams and lambs combined, calculated per ewe put to ram averaged El, 2s. 8d. per head in the Marginal Group and 15s. 11d. per head in the Hill Group. The lower cost in the latter group arises partly from the lower cost per acre of grassland, especially in respect of rent and manures, but the primary cause is to be found in the possession by the Hill Group of large areas of moorland which provides very cheap grazing for sheep during the summer months. The lower cost of grazing in the Hill Group however is matched by the lower value of the grazing, and the average level of nutrition provided for sheep by summer grazing, no less than in the winter in the form of folded roots and hand-fed foods, is significantly lower in the Hill Group.

Labour Costs The total cost of labour involved in shepherding the breeding flock plus the lamb crop, calculated per ewe, averaged 315 17s.. 10d. for the Hill Group and 15s. 10d. per head in the Marginal. This overall labour cost is made up as follows:

Labour: Average Cost per Ewe

Marginal Group Hill Group Labour: Hrs. s. d. Hrs. S. d. Manual 6.96 16 11 6.12 14 8 Horse 0.18 2 0.22 3 Riding Pony . 0.89 7 1-35 11 Tractor . 0.04 2 -- Total . 17 10 15 10

Horse and tractor labour relates to costs incurred in carting hand-fed foods to sheep, and carting hurdles, netting, etc. Riding ponies were used for shepherding on four of the sixteen farms in the Marginal Group and on eleven of the fourteen farms in the Hill Group. These items of cost however are small and, of total labour costs, 95 per cent in the former group and 93 per cent in the latter is accounted for by manual labour. Apart from one farm in each group, all the regular shepherding is undertaken by the farmer himself or by a member of his family, with assistance at busy periods. Such jobs as shearing, dipping, etc., requiring more men than can often be provided by individual farms are done in co-operation with neighbours. The average number of man-hours per 100 ewes per year was 696 in the Marginal Group and 621 in the Hill. Group; the average cost per man-hour was 29.14d. in the former group and 28.71d. in the latter. The lower cost per hour in the Hill Group arises mainly from the fact that the proportion of labour costs incurred at times when overtime rates are payable (week-end work and night work during lambing) was 9.8 per cent of total man-hours in this group compared with 10.4 per cent in the Marginal Group. An analysis of total manual labour according to operations carried out on the sheep is set out in Table 19. Routine day by day shepherding averaged 397 man-hours per 100 ewes in the Marginal Group and 321 man-hours in the Hill Group; the proportion of total annual labour requirements so absorbed was equal to 57 per cent and 52.5 per cent respectively in the two groups. Attention to ewes and lambs during lambing accounted for 165 man-hours (23.7 per cent) and 143 man-hours per 100 ewes (23.4 per cent) 316 respectively. Tailing and castrating lambs, docking (i.e., trimming) ewes, innoculation, etc., dipping and spraying, sorting and drafting all utilised about the same proportion of total man-hours in both groups; shearing sheep however took 10 man-hours per 100 ewes longer in the Hill Group owing mainly to the time taken to gather the sheep from the moor. Apart from this last item the most important differences relate

TABLE 19

Analysis of Manual Labour; Man-hours per year per 100 Ewes put to Ram, and as Per Cent of Total Labour

MARGINAL GROUP HILL GROUP Hrs. Hrs. per 100 Per per 100 Per Ewes Cent Ewes Cent

Routine shepherding 397 57.0 321 52-5 Other Labour: Lambing 165 23-7 143 23.4 Tailing and Castrating Lambs 13 1.9 13 2.1 Docking Ewes 15 2.2 14 2.2 Innoculating, Drenching, etc. 12 1-7 11 1.8 Shearing 57 8.1 67 11.0 Dipping and Spraying 15 2-2 16 2-6 Sorting and Drafting 9 1.3 10 1.6 Sundry 13 1.9 17 2.8 Total Other Labour 299 43.0 291 47.5 Total Labour 696 100.0 612 100-0

to the somewhat smaller time spent with the sheep at lambing time in the Hill Group and the larger saving in the labour involved in routine shepherding. Both these differences arise mainly from the .considerably larger average size of flock in the Hill Group, but are partly offset in the case of the routine shepherding by the greater distances involved where the sheep are grazing on the moor. During the summer months visits to sheep can often be undertaken in conjunction with other work on the enclosed farms of the Marginal Group, but this is rarely possible in the case of the hill flocks. 317 The effect of the size of the flock upon annual labour requirements is illustrated by the following analysis:

NUMBER OF EWES PER FLOCK

Under 51 to 101 to Over 50 100 150 150 MARGINAL GROUP: Number of Flocks . . 3 5 5 3 Average Number of Ewes per Flock • . • • • • 43 85 117 222 Man-hours per 100 Ewes per year . . 1,021 774 750 536 Under 150 151 to 250 Over 250 HILL GROUP: Number of flocks 3 6 5 Average Number of Ewes per Flock . . 121 222 307 Man-hours per 100 Ewes per Year 691 572 572 In the Marginal Group, flocks of over 150 breeding ewes show a substantial saving in labour costs, more than 200 man- hours per 100 ewes, compared with flocks of 50 to 150 ewes. Labour requirements for the very small flocks of less than 50 ewes are very high indeed, being nearly 250 man-hours per 100 ewes above the level in the medium-sized flocks. In the Hill Group minimum labour requirements also occur in flocks ofover 150 ewes,but labour requirements were no lower in the flocks of over 250 ewes than in the 150 to 250 ewe flocks. For flocks of between:150 and 250ewes, labour requirements were slightly lower in the Marginal Group than in the Hill Group. Miscellaneous Costs An analysis of Miscellaneous Costs is set out in Table 20. TABLE 20 Miscellaneous Costs: Average Cost per Ewe put to Ram

MARGINAL HILL GROUP GROUP s. d. s. d. Veterinary Fees and Stores . 1 3 • 7 Dips, Sprays, Powders, etc. 7 5 Lorry Hire 1 1 Auctioneers Commission . • 5 5 Sheep Equipment: Depreciation and Repairs . 10 6 Sundries 4 4 Total Miscellaneous Costs . 3 6 24 318 Veterinary fees and medical stores accounted for ls. 3d. per ewe in the Marginal group and 7d. in the Hill Group and, in both groups, constituted the largest single item under Miscellaneous Costs. Veterinary fees, except in a few special cases, are not a heavy expense, as farmers are usually their own veterinary surgeon where sheep are concerned, but the list of medical stores regularly employed by present-day shepherds is a formidable one: in fact it might almost be said that the syringe has become the hall-mark of the shepherd in these times. The cost of sheep dip and of sprays and powders averaged 7d. per ewe in the Marginal Group and 5d. in the Hill Group. Hire of lorry for transport of sheep to auction or grading centre, together with auctioneers' commission on sales of store sheep, averaged 6d. per ewe in both groups. Depreciation of, and repairs to, sheep equipment were rather heavier in the Marginal Group where, owing to the smaller size of flock, the valuation of equipment per 100 ewes is higher. Sundries, which averaged 4d. per ewe in both groups consist mainly of fuel and lubricating oil for the-clipping machine engine, cord for tying fleeces, and marking fluid. Total Miscellaneous costs averaged 2s. 4d. per ewe put to ram in the Hill Group, but were 50 per cent higher at 3s. 6d. per ewe in the Marginal Group owing to a greater expenditure upon veterinary fees and medical stores, sheep dip, etc., and repairs and depreciation of equipment.

Flock Depreciation The average cost of flock depreciation, i.e. depreciation of breeding ewes and rams calculated per ewe put to ram was as follows: Flock Depreciation: Average Cost per Ewe Marginal Hill Group- Group s. d. s. d. Depreciation: Ewes . • 15 6 15 1 Rams . ▪ 2 2 210 Total Flock Depreciation . • 17 8 17 11

Total Flock Depreciation was almost the same in both groups at around 18s. per ewe; depreciation of ewes was • slightly lower and of rams rather higher in the Hill Group. Data relating to depreciation of the ewe flock are set out in Table 21. 319 In both groups slightly over one-third of the breeding flock was disposed of during the course of the year, the majority in the form of draft ewes. Relatively few culled ewes in either group were consigned to the grading centres, and some of those recorded as graded in Table 21 were casualties. Nearly seven out of every 100 ewes in the opening valuation in the

TABLE 21 Depreciation of Breeding Ewes

MARGINAL GROUP HILL GROUP

Breeding Ewes Per Cent Average Per Cent Average of Opening Value of Opening Value Valuation per Head Valuation per Head 0/0 £ s. d. £ s. d. Opening Valuation 100.0 6 0 0 100.0 5 3 6 Disposals: . . . (a) Draft Ewes Sold . 23.7 5 2 4 24.9 4 7 6 (b) Ewes Graded . 3.5 3 17 6 4.7 3 15 9 (c) Deaths • • 8.1 6.6

Total Disposals 35-3 3 16 3 36.2 3 10 0 Closing Valuation . 64.7 6 0 0 63-8 4 18 9

Hill Group died during the year, while the proportion of deaths in the Marginal Group was higher, slightly over eight ewes per hundred. The average price realised by disposals (including deaths) was some 6s. per ewe lower in the Hill Group. However the level of depreciation was lower in this group and is accounted for by the smaller gap between the value of ewes at the beginning of the year and their disposal value. The ewes that remained in the flock at the end of the year in the Hill Group experienced a fall in average market value of nearly 5s. Od. per head compared with their opening valuation, whereas the average value per head in the Marginal Group was the same at the end as at the beginning of the year. Had the Exmoor Horn ewes in the Hill Group retained their value at the end of the year the overall cost of depreciation in this group would have been 3s. per ewe lower than was in fact the case. Depreciation of rams was higher in the Hill Group. The average margin between opening valuation and disposal price in this group was £7 5s. Od. per ram compared with a corresponding figure of £9 6s. Od. per head in the Marginal Group. The great majority of rams disposed of in both groups were 320 graded, or died, and the level of depreciation per ram is largely determined by the price at which rams are bought. The pur- chase price for the local Exmoor Horn rams is considerably lower than for the "imported " rams used in the Marginal Group, and the average depreciation on each ram disposed of during the year is therefore higher. However, although depreciation is higher on each ram replaced in the Marginal. Group, only 13-5 per cent of the rams in this group were disposed of during the year compared with 48-3 per cent in the Hill Group. The mortality rate among rams in the Hill Group equalled 13-8 per cent compared with 2-7 per cent in the Marginal Group. The higher loss on each ram replaced in the Marginal Group is more than offset by a longer working life. Returns Wool The value of wool produced from ewes, rams and lambs, in calculated per ewe put to ram, averaged 17s. 7d. per ewe the Marginal Group and 19s. 4d. in the Hill Group. The average weight of wool sold per ewe was 8-16 lb. in the former group and 8-26 lb. in the latter, while the average price received per lb. was 25-86d. and 28-13d. respectively. Lambs Reared The average value of lambs reared per ewe put to ram was £4 1 1 s. 11d. per ewe in the Marginal Group and £3 17s. 4d. per ewe in the Hill Group. The average number of lambs reared per 100 ewes was 101 in the former group and 104 in the latter, and the average value of each lamb reared was £4 us. 3d. per lamb in the Marginal and £3 14s. 8d. per lamb in the Hill Group. The lower value realised by store Iambs in the Hill group is not surprising; what was unexpected however was the relatively greater number of lambs reared per 100 ewes in this group compared with the Marginal Group. There can be no doubt but that the Exmoor Horn sheep is ideally suited to conditions in its native district. Unfortunately, the demand from the lowland districts for draft ewes, store lambs and hoggs is limited by the small size of sheep of this breed. Official price policy for fat sheep and lambs has placed greater emphasis upon the size of the carcase than upon the quality of the meat, and, while this state of affairs persists, quality mutton and lamb and the small breeds of sheep capable of producing it will remain at a serious disadvantage. 321 Lambing Data Data relating to lambing results are set out below, firstly as it affects the breeding ewes, and secondly with regard to the lamb crop itself.

BREEDING EWES MARGINAL GROUP HILL GROUP

No. % No. % Number of Ewes in Opening Valuation 1,806 100.0 3-233 100.0 Number Died Before Lambing 5 0.3 19 0.6 Number Alive at Lambing 1,801 99.7 3,214 99.4 Barren Ewes 61 3-4 142 4.4 Number of Ewes Lambing . 1,740 96.3 3,072 95.0 Number Died During Lambing 42 2.3 34 1.1 Number Died after Lambing . 100 5.5 160 4.9 Total Number of Ewes Dying During Year • • 147 8-1 213 6.6

Fewer than 1 ewe per 100 in either group died between the time the flocks were made up and the onset of the lambing season; ewes dying during, or as a direct result of lambing averaged 2.3 per cent in the Marginal Group, but only 1-1 per cent in the Hill Group. The number of barren ewes (i.e. ewes that, as far as is known, never carried a lamb) averaged 3-4 per cent in the Marginal Group and 4.4 per cent in the Hill Group. The • number of barren ewes in any flock, especially in a flock managed under hill conditions, can only be an estimate, and it is probable that some ewes recorded as barreners had in fact lost their lambs at some stage of the pregnancy. However, for every 100 ewes put to ram 95 ewes in the Hill Group and over 96 in the Marginal are known to have lambed, the remainder either died before lambing, were barren, or lost their lambs without the fact being observed. The number of ewes dying after lambing and up to the time the flocks are again made up averaged 5.5 per cent in the Marginal Group and 4.9 per cent in the Hill Group. Total deaths among ewes during the twelve months accounted for just over 8 ewes per 100 in the Marginal and under 7 per 100 ewes in the Hill Group. Deaths in the latter group include ewes that are "missing, presumed dead" and a few such losses may be subsequently recovered alive from the moor. The total number of lambs born is an estimate, as only in 322 a few cases, particularly among the larger flocks, is it possible to know exactly how many lambs are born dead. However, the flocks in the Hill and Marginal Groups lamb down in enclosed fields under close supervision, and the estimate of total lambs born is thought to be fairly accurate when averaged over the whole group. The total number of lambs born per 100 ewes that lambed was similar in both groups at approximately 128

LAMBS MARGINAL GROUP HILL GROUP No. 0/0 No. Total Number of Lambs Born 2,223 100.0 3,934 100.0 Number Born Dead . 233 10-5 260 6.6 Number Born Alive . . . 1,990 89-5 3,674 93.4 Number Died since Lambing. 171 7.7 326 8.3 Number of Lambs Reared . 1,819 81-8 3,348 85-1 No. No. Number of Lambs Born per 100 Ewes Lambing . . . 127-8 128.1 Number of Lambs Born per 100 Ewes put to Ram . . 123.1 121.7 Number of Lambs Reared per 100 Ewes put to Ram . . 100.7 103-6

lambs per 100 ewes, equal to just over one set of twins from every four lambings. Owing to the higher proportion of barren ewes, and ewes dying before lambing, total lambs born per 100 ewes put to ram was slightly lower in the Hill Group. Of the total number of Iambs born, 10.5 per cent in the Mar- ginal and • 6.6 per cent in the Hill Group were born dead, i.e. were actually dead at birth or did not survive for more than approximately twenty-four hours. A further 7.7 per cent of lambs in the Marginal and 8.3 per cent in the Hill Group died between one day old and the end of the costing year at 31st October, and of these well over one-half died in the first two months of their life. Of the total lambs born, including those born dead, 81-8 per cent were successfully reared in the Marginal and 85.1 per cent in the Hill Group; of the lambs born alive, just over 91 per cent in each group were reared. Thus although as a result of a higher proportion of barreners slightly fewer lambs were born per 100 ewes put to ram in the Hill Group, the number of lambs reared per 100 ewes was 103.6 in this group compared with 100.7 per 100 ewes in the Marginal Group; the higher proportion of lambs born dead, 323 or dying immediately afterwards, in the Marginal Group resulted in a lower proportion of lambs reared. The distribution of lambs born per 100 ewes- put to ram shows little difference between the two groups; the best result was 143 lambs born per 100 ewes in the Marginal and 145 lambs in the Hill Group, and the poorest result 104 and 103 lambs per 100 ewes in the two groups respectively. The distribution of lambs reared as a percentage of lambs born however shows some pronounced differences between the two groups. Two flocks out of sixteen in the Marginal Group reared less than 70 lambs out of every 100 born, six flocks reared less than 80, and only one flock reared more than 90 out of every 100 lambs born; in the Hill Group only two flocks out of fourteen reared less than 80 lambs out of every 100 and both these reared 70 or more, while three flocks in this group each reared between 90 and 95 lambs out of every 100 born, In spite of the fact that the flocks are smaller in the Marginal Group, the level of nutrition higher, climatic conditions less severe, and the sheep under closer supervision than is possible in the Hill Group, the proportion of twin lambs born was no higher in this group, and losses among both ewes and lambs were significantly greater. It seems clear that the Exmoor Horn sheep of the Hill Group are better suited to their less favourable environment than are the sheep maintained in the Marginal Group on the Brendon Hills or, as is perhaps nearer the truth, Exmoor, despite the greater severity of climatic conditions is healthier sheep land than that on the Brendons. Sheep are much less crowded on most farms in the Hill Group, there is less folding on roots in the winter, more new leys for the sheep to graze and, during the summer, an extensive range of moorland pasture to run over. There appears to be less disease among sheep in the Hill Group and, although this alone may account for the lower proportion of losses, it also seems probable that the average standard of shepherding is higher in this group where sheep are of greater relative importance than in the Marginal Group.

Disposal ofLambs Reared Data relating to the method of disposal of the lamb crop and the average price realised are set out in Table 22. Of total lambs reared only 31-2 per cent in the Marginal and 15-5 per cent in the Hill Group actually left the farm as lambs, the remainder being retained for wintering as hoggs. The general policy in both districts is to sell off, as lambs, all 324 wethers that are in suitable condition; all ewe lambs are generally retained in the Hill Group but, in the Marginal Group, on those farms where cross-breeding is practised and ewe stock kept pure, the aim is to sell out the ewe-lambs also. Any Iambs in fit condition may be sold as stores or graded, according to their condition and the relative price levels pre- vailing at the grading centre and local store markets. During the year under investigation about one-half of lambs available for disposal in the Marginal Group were sold off the farm,

TABLE 22 Method of Disposal of Lambs and Average Value Realized per Head

MARGINAL GROUP HILL GROUP

Per Cent Value per Per Cent Value per of Total Head of Total Head

0/0 £ s. d. £ s. d. Method of Disposal Sold as Stores . 28-0 4 12 6 14-4 3 15 4 Graded 3-2 5 12 1 1-1 3 17 7 Retained . 68-8 4 9 9 84-5 3 14 6 Total 100-0 4 11 3 100.0 3 14 8

while in the Hill Group less than one-third were in sufficiently forward condition for sale in the autumn store sales. Of the lambs sold as stores the price realised by the larger, mainly cross-bred lambs in the Marginal Group averaged £4 12s. 6d. per head, compared with £3 15s. 4d. per lamb for the Exmoor Horn lambs in the Hill Group. Lambs graded brought an average return of£5 12s. 1 d. in the Marginal Group, nearly 20s. per head higher than the corresponding price realised by store lambs in this group; only one lamb out of every ten sold, however, was graded. In the Hill Group the average value of lambs graded at £3 17s. 7d. was £1 14s. 6d. lower than in the Marginal Group, and only 2s. 3d. per lamb higher than the price of store lambs in the Hill Group; only seven lambs out of every 100 sold were actually graded in this group. In point of fact, two farms only out of the fourteen in the Hill Group accounted for all the lambs graded in this group, and only three farms out of sixteen in the Marginal Group sent lambs to the grading centre. The average estimated dressed carcase weight of the lambs graded in the Marginal , 325 Group was 48 lb. per head, but for lambs in the Hill Group the corresponding figure was 13 lb. lower at 35 lb. per lamb. The summer of 1950 was exceptionally wet and, in fact, the whole twelve month period 1949/50 was an unfavourable year for sheep. As a result, the condition of the lambs was not as forward as in more favourable years and, in both groups, and particularly in the Hill Group, the bulk of the lamb crop was retained on the farm for wintering. The value assessed for lambs retained for wintering averaged £4 9s. 9d. per lamb in the Marginal and £3 14s. 6d. per head in the Hill Group; the average value of all lambs, sold, graded and retained was £4 us. 3d. per lamb in the former group and £3 14s. 8d. in the latter. There is fairly strong evidence that the average value of lambs produced by farms in the Hill Group depends to some extent upon the length of time that they spend upon the moor during the summer months. An analysis made according to this factor yielded the following results:

HILL GROUP

Average Proportion of Summer Graz- Value of ing Period Spent on the Moor Lambs £ s. d. Less than 20% 4 1 6 21% to 50% 3 14 8 More than 50% 3 7 7 All Farms 3 14 8

In three flocks where lambs spent more than 50 per cent of the summer grazing period on the moor, the average value of lambs reared was £3 7s. 7d. per head; where lambs spend between 21 per cent and 50 per cent of the grazing period on the moor the average value was £3 14s. 8d., and with less than 20 per cent, the average value was £4 is. 6d. per head. The lower value of lambs in the Hill Group as a whole arises mainly from their smaller size and less forward condition, as a result of which the demand from lowland farmers for the Exmoor Horn lambs is relatively poor. The small size of the sheep is an inherent characteristic of the Exmoor Horn breed and attempts to increase the size have led, in the past, to a loss of hardiness and a lowered ability to endure successfully the rigorous winter conditions on Exmoor, especially that 326 represented by a combination of wetness and low temperature. Inability to get lambs in a sufficiently forward condition for sale in the autumn is normally a consequence of the relatively late lambing season, and of the extensive system of management practised. Any attempt to lamb down earlier is likely, under present systems of management; to run into difficulties of food supplies for nursing ewes and, under any system of management, would meet additional hazards in the form of still less favourable climatic conditions during lambing. It has been mentioned previously that most farms in the Hill Group provide a specially sown crop of rape and grass seeds for the lambs in the late summer. The effect of availability of this type of grazing upon the average value of the lambs appears to be very slight for the sample offarms studied, at least for the year under review. Farms in the Hill Group have been divided into three groups, High, Medium and Low according to the amount of grass seeds and rape provided for the lambs. The results of this analysis, which is limited to the Hill Group, is set out below:

Average Stock carried Acreage of value of per acre of Group Rape and Grass lambs Grassland: Cow per 100 lambs per head Equiv. Wks. Acres £ s. d. No. • High . . 7.13 3 19 7 12.81 Medium . 4.69 3 16 0 10-32 Low . . 0.84 3 16 4 9.01

With an average acreage of 7-13 acres of rape and grass per 100 lambs in the High group, the average value per lamb was only some 3s. per head above that in the Medium and Low groups which provided 4-69 acres and 0-84 acres per 100 lambs respectively. The provision of specially sown grazing mixtures on these farms is clearly not adding any significant amount to the value of the lambs; equally clearly, however, it is enabling a larger head of stock to be carried on the grassland. The stock carried per 100 acres of grassland on the farm proper in the High group was 24 per cent greater than in the Medium group and 42 per cent greater than in the Low group. Neither is this a case of keeping stock on the farm at the expense of relative under-stocking on the moor, as the density of stocking • on the moorland grazing was also considerably higher for the High group than for either of the other two groups. Rather, 327 the provision of a considerable acreage of specially sown keep on the farms in the High group represents a successful attempt at intensification of production by increasing the number of sheep maintained on the available acreage; the average number of breeding ewes maintained per 100 acres of enclosed farmland was 152 for the High group, compared with 89 in the Medium, and 103 ewes per 100 acres in the Low group. Total sheep carried in the High group were 52 per cent greater than in the Medium and 33 per cent greater than in the Low; stock other than sheep, on a cow-equivalent basis, were 16 per cent greater in the High than in the Medium group, and 61 per cent greater than in the Low group. A similar analysis of the data relating to the Marginal Group shows that a group of farms in which 11-4 per cent of total grassland area took the form of first year leys carried, on average,9 per cent more stock per acre and produced lambs worth nearly 8s. per head more than for a group offarms where only 3-8 per cent of the grassland was in first year leys. In this case the extra productive capacity of the leys has been utilised both to improve the value of the lambs, and also to increase the number of stock carried, although, in this group, it is cattle rather than sheep that are carried in greater numbcrs on the farms with a higher proportion of new leys. The question as to whether intensification of output by an increase in the number of sheep carried per 100 acres is more advantageous than the alternative method of increasing the value of each lamb produced is a point of considerable practical importance, particularly for the Hill Group. In both cases intensification can only be brought about by the provision of extra keep for sheep; the question then becomes whether this extra keep is more economically used in support of an increased number of sheep at the previous level of nutrition, or the same number at a higher level of nutrition, thereby leading to the production of store sheep of higher value. In an attempt to throw some light on this point the data relating to the farms in the Hill Group has been further analysed according to the level of total food costs, including grazing, which has been taken as representing the relative level of nutrition of the flocks. A similar analysis was attempted for the Marginal Group but in this case the results are so overlaid by differences in breed of sheep, size of farm and flock, and differences in the degree of emphasis upon milk sales, store cattle rearing and sheep that no valid comparisons could be effected. There appears to be some evidence, 328 however, that the results obtained from the breeding flock are less favourable on the milk-selling farms in the Marginal Group than on those farms where the whole attention of the farmer is devoted to sheep and cattle rearing. Where a sheep flock is run more or less as scavengers it is not, however, to be expected that the results would be as favourable as where it is run as a main enterprise of the farm. The main test of the usefulness of such a flock is whether, on balance, it adds anything to the profit of the farm, and, if it does so, whether the extra profit is worth the extra effort involved in maintaining such a flock in view of the competition between the the ewes and lambs, and the milking cows and followers for limited food supplies that will inevitably arise in certain seasons. On this question the present investigation was not designed to throw any light and, owing to the method of investigation adopted, cannot in fact do so. For the purpose of this analysis the farms in the Hill Group have been divided into two groups; the first group, called the High group, contains the seven farms with the highest cost per head of foods and grazing, and the Low group he seven farms with the lowest food costs. The results of this analysis are set out in Table 23. The average size of flock is similar in both groups, but there is a most significant difference between the number of Iambs reared per 100 ewes put to ram; this averaged 115 lambs per 100 ewes in the High nutrition group but only 90 per 100 ewes in the Low group. The proportion of barren ewes inthe Low group at over 6 per 100 ewes was nearly twice as high as in the High group. Calculated on the number of ewes actually lambing, the total number of lambs born, alive and dead, averaged 135 for the High group and 115 per 100 ewes for the Low group; calculated per 100 ewes put to ram, lambs born averaged 129 and 108 per 100 ewes in the two groups respectively. Of total lambs born, just over 6 per cent in each group were born dead, or died within twenty-four hours, but the proportion of lambs dying within two months of birth and at a later stage was appreciably higher, in both cases, in the Low group; of total lambs born in this group only 83 per cent were finally reared compared with 89 per cent in the High group. Total costs of foods and grazing combined averagq1 El Ss. ld. per ewe in the High group and 18s. per ewe in the Low group. Foods Were 3s. Od. per ewe higher in the former group, grazing cost of ewes and rams 2s. 8d., and for lambs, 329 is. 5d. per ewe higher. The cost of folded roots averaged Ss. 10d. per ewe in the High group and only is. 6d. per ewe in the Low group; the former group provided 3.58 acres offolded roots per 100 ewes compared with only 0.93 acres in the latter group.

TABLE 23 Hill Group: Average Costs and Returns According to Level of Total Costs of Foods and Grazing

High Low Group Group Number of Farms 7 7 Average Number of Ewes per Farm 237 225 Lambs Reared per 100 Ewes put to ram 115 90 £ s. d. £ s. d. Average Cost per Ewe put to Ram (1) Foods (a) Folded Roots . 510. 1 6 (b) Hand-Fed Foods 20 34 Total Foods 710 410 (2) Grazing (a) Ewes and Rams 12 10 10 2 (b) Lambs . . 45 30 Total Grazing 17 3 13 2 Total Foods and Grazing 1 5 1 18 0 (3) Labour 15 6 15 0 (4) Miscellaneous Costs 24 2 1 (5) Flock Depreciation . 18 6 17 11 TOTAL COST PER EWE 3 1 5 213 0 LESS: Sales of Wool . 1 0 3 18 2 NET COST PER EWE . 2 1 2 1 14 10 VALUE: Lambs Reared per Ewe . 4 5 7 3 5 2

MARGIN (Surplus) per Ewe 2 4 5 1 10 4 Average Cost and Return per Lamb Average Value per Lamb . 3 14 5 3 12 9 Net Cost per Lamb . 1162 1 18 10 Margin (Surplus) per Lamb . 1183 1 13 11

Hand-fed roots were fed to the extent of 1.61 cwts. per ewe in the Low group and 0.43 cwt. per ewe in the High group but, if the yield of folded roots is put at no more than 8 tons per acre, the breeding ewes in the High group received, on average, twice the total weight of roots that ewes in Low group received; 330 ewes in the former group also received 19 lb. per head of hay compared with 13 lb. per head in the Low group. Cake and corn fed to ewes was negligible in both groups. The cost per head of grazing was greater in the High group both for ewes and rams, and for lambs, and in both winter and summer periods. The higher cost of grazing almost certainly corresponds to a higher intake of grass per head of stock, for, while the average cost per acre of grassland is almost identical in both groups, the grassland in the Low group carried 32 per cent more stock (measured in cow equivalent weeks) during the winter and 23 per cent more in the summer months. It is clear that the level of nutrition of the breeding flock was considerably higher in the High group than in the Low, particularly during the winter months. As this is the period of pregnancy and lambing there is probably no need to look further than this for the reason for the much higher level of fertility of the ewes in the High group. Although the level of nutrition in the Low group may have been biologically in- sufficient to support a higher level of fertility among ewes in this group, it cannot be assumed that under hill conditions a higher level of nutrition, with a resulting increase in the birth and survival rate of lambs, is necessarily desirable from an economic point of view, as the increase in food costs may more than outweigh the benefit to be derived from a larger lamb crop. In other words, it may pay better to rear fewer lambs per ewe at a lower cost per ewe. On the face of it however the figures presented in Table 23 indicate that this is not the case; the average net cost per ewe in the High nutrition group was 6s. 4d. per head higher, but the value of lambs produced was 20s. 5d. per ewe higher, and the margin per ewe 14s. 1 d. greater. The net cost per lamb reared was slightly lower in this group as the increased cost per ewe is more than absorbed by the greater number of Iambs reared per 100 ewes, and the value per head of the lambs reared is slightly higher. This assessment of the relative economic advantage of a higher as against a lower level of nutrition for the breeding flock is, however, incomplete. For any given acreage more a sheep can be maintained at a lower nutritional level than at higher level. The farms in the Low group in fact carried, on average, approximately 32 per cent more stock measured in cow equivalents per 100 acres of farmland (the acreage of moorland grazing was almost the same per 100 acres of 331 enclosed farmland in each group); they had approximately 50 per cent more total sheep, 43 per cent more breeding ewes, and 10 per cent more other stock, mainly cattle, than the High group. The actual number of breeding ewes carried per 100 acres of farmland was 139 ewes in the Low group and 97 in the High group; the surplus margin per 100 acres therefore becomes, when the Hill Sheep Subsidy is also taken into account, £245 us. 3d. in the Low group and £239 13s. 5d. per 100 acres in the High. On balance, therefore, the advantage lies slightly with the Low group where more sheep are maintained at a lower level of nutrition. Following the steep increase in wool prices in 1951, the present slight advantage enjoyed by the Low group should become decisive, increasing returns from wool sales in this group by between £40-50 per 100 acres more than the corresponding increase in the High group. This question of the optimum number of breeding ewes in relation to the level of nutrition cannot however be com- pletely stated by reference to sheep numbers alone. In upland areas, such as Exmoor, sheep and cattle are, in one sense, complementary; in another and equally real sense they are also competitive, especially for spring grazing when ewes have their lambs at foot and winter keep for cattle is ex- hausted. The farms in the Low nutrition group carried 32 per cent more stock per 100 acres including 50 per cent more sheep and 10 per cent more cattle than in the High group and, as relatively little provision is made for roots for the sheep in this group, the competition between sheep and cattle for grazing, especially spring grazing, must be very acute. It is highly probable therefore that less grazing perhead was available to all classes of stock in the Low group than in the High group, and possibly the farms in the Low group may be too heavily stocked to yield optimum returns from the sheep and cattle enterprises taken together; in other -words what is gained on the sheep enterprise by heavy stocking may be lost, wholly or in part, on the cattle enterprise. On, the other hand,although it appears less likely, a similar relation- ship between the level of stocking, level of nutrition, and return per acre may be true for cattle as well as for sheep, particularly if the Hill Cattle Subsidy is taken into account. This, however, can only be a matter of conjecture, as evidence relating to the relative levels of profitability of the cattle enterprise on these two groups of farins is lacking. What is quite certain however is that if over-stocking in the economic sense exists 332 in the Low group, it is only in relation to existing levels of grassland productivity which fall short of what is possible and economically desirable. Hill Sheep and Cattle Subsidies rightly encourage increased stocking in the hill districts, but the essential and complementary policy of effectively encourag- ing stock-carrying capacity is largely absent. From this point of view the withdrawal of the fertiliser subsidy, especially for grassland, is likely to prove a major step in the wrong direction as far as upland areas at least are concerned.

Conclusion In conclusion, it should perhaps be noted that the fact that farmers in the Exmoor Hill Group are obtaining more satisfactory results from their sheep than are farmers in the Brendon Hills Marginal Group does not mean that the policy pursued in the latter area of attempting to produce a sheep that more readily meets the needs of lowlana farmers is a mistaken one. On the contrary, there is every reason to suppose that under present economic conditions it is the correct one, although, should there be a shift in price emphasis at a later stage from carcase weight to quality of meat, it is a policy that may then need reconsideration. Probably the most valid inference to be drawn from the lower returns from the breeding flock in the Marginal Group is that although the policy adopted is the correct one, its implementation has not yet been successfully accomplished, in that a breed or cross has not generally emerged that meets both the requirements of the market and Brendon Hill conditions. On Exmoor, sheep policy is largely determined by soil and climatic conditions. The availability oflarge areas of moorland grazing at once affords the possibility of maintaining large flocks of sheep, but it also imposes the need for a relatively extensive system of management which, in conjunction with severe climatic conditions, implies a policy with regard to breed of sheep which is virtually limited to a choice between one or other of the recognised hill breeds. It may be that hill breeds other than the Exmoor Horn would give better results than the native breed, but there is no real evidence that this in fact would be the case, and little ground on which to presume so. In the case of farmers in the Brendon Hills Marginal Group the position is quite different. The absence of large areas of 333 moorland grazing in itself calls for a policy of sheep management distinct from that on Exmoor, while the better quality of the land, and the less severe climatic conditions of the Brendon Hills allows more latitude with regard to both breed of sheep and general management policy. Such evidence as this investigation affords shows clearly that the average value realised by lambs of pure-bred Closewool, and still more of Exmoor Horns, kept on the Brendon Hills is markedly lower than for Closewools crossed to a Down ram.- The evidence, which is necessarily limited in a small group of flocks consisting of a considerable number of breeds and crosses, suggests that the Hampshire Down cross with Closewool or cross-bred Close- wool ewes produces lambs of the highest average value, but that this increased value is not infrequently offset by higher costs. The most convincing evidence, however, is to the effect that the standard of management of the flocks is of as great, or greater, importance than the superior qualities of any particular breed or cross; both the best and the worst financial results in the Marginal Group relate to Closewool flocks crossed to Hampshire rams. The results of this investigation indicate that Exmoor farmers who are following a traditional system of sheep husbandry which, owing to natural conditions in the area, is largely unalterable, are doing so successfully in spite of the economic disadvantages that result from a relatively poor demand for sheep of the Exmoor Horn breed. The Brendon Hill farmers on the other hand, while seeking to produce a type of sheep that more readily meets present day demands, have not as yet met with general success in the carrying out of this policy. Indeed, the result ofindividual and unco-ordinated efforts to further this line of development has resulted in such a diversity of different breeds and crosses that the lack of uniformity amongst sheep, particularly store lambs, is of itself proving a great disadvantage in attracting the attendance of lowland farmers at sheep sales in this district.

The Report Summarised Between 1939 and 1947 a very steep decline was brought about in the numbers of sheep in England and Wales and, although there has been some recovery since, the number of sheep at June 1950 was still only 69 per cent of the pre-war level. It is against this background that a series of investigations into the economics of sheep production in the West of 334 England was planned, and this report, dealing with the first of these investigations, is concerned with the costs and returns of store lamb production in the upland areas of S.W. Somerset over the twelve month period November 1949 to October 1950. Financial and economic data have been obtained for two groups of farms; sixteen farms forming the Marginal Group are in the Brendon Hills district, and fourteen farms in the Hill Group are located in the contiguous but distinct Exmoor district. The lower rent per acre of crops and grass and the large area of moorland grazing associated with the farms in the Hill Group are witness to the lower level of productivity of the land in this group, while the different pattern of land utilisation reflects the less favourable soil, climate and topographical conditions on Exmoor. The average number of breeding ewes maintained was 113 in the Marginal Group and 231 ewes per flock in the Hill Group. The average total valuation of ewes, stock rams and sheep equipment, calculated per 100 ewes, was £673 in the former group and £575 in the latter. The total cost of producing store lambs, calculated per ewe put to ram, averaged £3 18s. 5d. in the Marginal Group and £2 18s. 7d. per ewe in the Hill Group. Deducting the value of wool produced from the total cost gives a net cost of production of£3 Os. 10d. per ewe in the former and £1 19s. 3d. in the latter group. On average 101 lambs were reared per 100 ewes in the Marginal and 104 in the Hill Group, giving an average net cost of rearing, per lamb reared, of £3 Os. 4d. in the former group and £1 17s. 10d. per lamb in the latter. The average value per head of lambs was £4 1 is. 3d. in the Marginal and £3 14s. 8d. per lamb in the Hill Group, and the surplus margin per lamb was £1 10s. 11d. and £1 16s. 10d. in the two groups respectively. Thus, although the value per head of lambs reared in the Marginal Group was considerably higher, the average rearing cost was proportionately still greater, with the result that the margin in this group was 18 per cent per ewe, and 16 per cent per lamb reared lower than the corresponding margins in the Hill Group. The major part of the difference between the two groups in the cost of production is accounted for by the cost of folded roots and grazing. On average, 5.73 acres of folded roots were provided in the Marginal Group per 100 breeding ewes, but only 2.58 acres in the Hill Group; the average cost of production of these root crops was £10 6s. 6d. in the former and 335 £8 3s. 7d. per acre in the latter group. Higher costs of labour, rent, seeds, field costs, but especially of manures were incurred in the Marginal Group in the production of folded roots, but the average yield per acre was also higher. The average cost of grassland (excluding cutting and harvesting costs on mowing land) was £3 9s. Od. per acre in the Marginal and £3 2s. 7d. in the Hill Group; the former group incurred higher costs per acre for manures, rent, and field costs, but lower costs for ley establishment. The Hill Group had a higher proportion of first year leys, and the cost of establishing each acre of ley was higher owing to the general method practised in this group of establishing leys by direct seeding with rape. Moorland grazing in the Hill Group averaged 4s. per acre of which 75 per cent represented the rental value of the land. The cost of grazing per ewe per week during the winter six months averaged 3-69d. in the Marginal and 2-30d. per ewe-week in the Hill Group; the corresponding overall figures for the summer period were 6-66d. and 3-82d. per ewe-week respectively. For ewes grazing on moorland during the summer the cost amounted to only 0-90d. per ewe-week, but this low grazing cost is also a measure of the relatively low value of such grazing. Labour expenditure averaged 6-96 man-hours at a cost of 17s. 10d. per ewe in the Marginal and 6-21 man-hours costing 15s. 10d. per ewe per year in the Hill Group. Time spent on routine shepherding and at lambing was lower per ewe in the larger flocks of the Hill Group. Very high labour costs per ewe were recorded in the small flocks of less than 50 ewes, and relatively low costs for flocks of over 150 ewes. For flocks of comparable size labour requirements are slightly lower in the Marginal Group. Total flock depreciation on ewes and rams was approximately the same per ewe in both groups; depreciation on ewes. was slightly lower in the Hill Group but was offset by higher depreciation of the rams. A fall in the average valuation of breeding ewes in the Hill Group at the end of the period increased the depreciation of the ewe flock by 3s. per ewe in this group. The weight of wool shorn from ewes, rams and lambs, calculated per ewe, averaged 8-16 lb. in the Marginal and 8-26 lb. in the Hill Group; the average price realised was 25-86d. and 28-13d. per lb. respectively in the two groups, and the total value of wool 17s. 7d. and 19s. 4d. per ewe. 336 Of the total number of lambs reared only 31-2 per cent in the Marginal and 15-5 per cent in the Hill Group were sold as lambs, the remainder being retained for wintering. Of those sold in the Marginal Group approximately one in ten were sold fat at an average estimated dressed carcase weight of 48 lb.; in the Hill Group an even smaller proportion of lambs sold were graded at an average weight of 35 lb. Analysis of the data for the Hill Group reveals that on those farms providing a considerable acreage of rape and grass seeds mixture for summer grazing of lambs, little has been added to the condition or value of the lambs, but that the stocking of the farm in these cases is considerably higher. Analysis according to the level of food costs indicates that an increase in food supplies for the breeding ewes, particularly during the winter months, is accompanied by a marked increase in the number of lambs born and reared per 100 ewes, and by a higher margin per ewe. This advantage was outweighed, however, for the group of farms studied, by the fact that fewer ewes per 100 acres were maintained on those farms where the level of food supplies was higher, and the surplus per 100 acres was slightly lower. The economic advantage of heavier stocking at a lower level of nutrition will become more pronounced with the recent increases in wool prices. The effect of a possible reduction in the returns per 100 acres from cattle that may result from heavy stocking with sheep cannot, however, be overlooked. Hill sheep rearers on Exmoor in general are pursuing a traditional policy of sheep husbandry based on the native breed of sheep, a policy which, owing to the limitations im- posed by soil and climatic conditions, offers little scope for adaptation. The results of this investigation suggests that they are doing so successfully despite, under present price policy for mutton and lamb, a rather poor demand for the type of sheep that they can produce. Farmers in the marginal Brendon Hills area, while undoubtedly pursuing the correct policy of attempting to produce a type of sheep more in demand by lowland farmers, do not appear as yet to have generally succeeded in achieving this aim; individual and unco-ordinated efforts to give effect to this policy are also having the unfortunate result of bringing about a considerable degree of mongrelisation of sheep stocks in this district.

OCTOBER, 195C R. R. JEFFERY.

337