_

UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL

Department of Agriculture and Horticulture ECONOMICS BRANCH

Issue No. 4.

WILTSHIRE AGRICULTURAL ACCOUNTING SOCIETY FACTORS AFFECTING WILTSHIRE PROFITS

Based upon Accounts for Cropping Year 1930

February 1932 UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL

Department of Agriculture and Horticulture

Head of Department: Professor B. T. P. Barker, M.A.

ADVISORY STAFF

(BERKELEY SQUARE CENTRE)

Agricultural Officer in Charge: A. W. Ling, M.Sc., N.D.A., Dip Agric.

Agricultural Chemistry.

Advisory Chemist A. W. Ling.

IR. B. H. Round, B.Sc. Assistant Chemists • -)) W. R. Muir. L. J. Hewitt.

Agricultural Economics.

Advisory Economist C. V. Dawe, Worn.

Permanent Assistant J. E. Blundell, M.Corn.

I G. T. Roy, Q.A.L.A.S. Student Assistants H. T. Horsman, B.Sc., N.D.A., Dip. Agric. J. D. Nutt, N.D.A.

Veterinary Science.

Advisory Officer D. W. Menzies, M.R.C.V.S.

Dairy Bacteriology.

Dairy Bacteriologist C. S. Miles, B.Sc. UNIVERSITY SUPPLEMENT

This edition contains 4 supplementary pages which are not included in the edition distributed amongst farmers. The technical statistical aspect of this kind of work has no interest for the farmer. Yet because statistical economists have many problems to investigate before they can claim to possess a satisfactory method for dealing with problems of farm management, we shall divide our investigations into two parts. Difficulties in respect of statistical method will not be allowed to hold up the production of reports such as the present one. But in the course of the investigation, many problems present themselves,and suggest an examination and criticism of method.

The outstanding problem we have had to deal with so far is the error of the arithmetic mean. Statisticians,in applying their methods to price indices have for long recognised the existence of an error in the arithmetic mean. The same error is likely to affect correlation, as the mean-moment-over- product-standard-deviations method is based on the arithmetic mean and the assumption of normality in the distributions.

Just as the geometric mean has been found more accurate in the construction of a price index,so we have found it more accurate for correlation (but not always). The geometric method has been applied here wherever the distribution of the logarithms of the series gives better normality than the distribution of the figures themselves. A more detailed examination of the advisability of utilising the geometric mean as the basis of correlation is to be made immediately, and a special issue will be published and circulated.

It is hoped further to proceed to an experiment in multiple correlation.

The remaining pages of this supplement are devoted to detailing correlation coefficients and regression equations as have been worked out in the course of, the preparation of the trends appearing within. CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

Log.production per acre with log.costs per acre 4- .902

The factors following are arranged in order of the magnitude of the difference between the two correlation coefficients, as this, very roughly, measures the importance of the factors' contribution to profit and loss, Naturally those factors which combine a cost item with a production item head the list. Factor Mean r.'with r, with production costs _ Per cent labour of production G - .392 .116

Per cent foodstuffs of livestock G .224 s- .446 prodace Per cent production in crops G -.410 - .277

Per cent production in milk A '.534 4- .424

Per cent capital in deadstock A - .170 - .099

Per cent production in sheep A .r. .582 * ;641

Per cent capital in livestock A 4- .018 - .017

Per cent labour of total costs A - .272 - .302

Per cent capital in plant, A 4- .1521 4- .179 implements,machinery Per cent of land in arable A - .223 - .202

Coefficient of specialisation A f- .143 4- .161

Capital per acre G 4- .808 4- .806 -1-

ISSUE NO.4

FACTORS FEB 1932

AFFECTING ACCOUNTS FOR

WILTSHIRE PROFITS CROPPING YEAR 1930

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION PAGE 2

FRONTISPIECE

CHART OF PRODUCTION AND COSTS Facing PAGE 3

CHAPTER 1

EFFECT OF MILK, SHEEP, CROPS AND SPECIALISATION PAGE 4 CHAPTER 2

EFFECT OF LABOUR COSTS AND PURCHASE OF FOODSTUFFS PAGE 12 CHAPTER 3

EFFECT OF ARABLE LAND PAGE 18

CHAPTER 4

EFFECT OF INTENSITY OF CAPITAL, AND ITS DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN LIVESTOCK, DEADSTOCK, AND IMPLEMENTS AND MACHINERY PAGE 20 CHAPTER 5

IN CONCLUSION PAGE 28 INTRODUCTION

Study this issue in conjunction with:

ISSUE 1. LIST OF FARMS ACCOUNTING SOCIETY'S ANNUAL TABLES NO. 6

All calculations are worked from the results of the /1/I farms that appear in the last annual tables.

In the pages that follow? an analysis is made of the effect of 12 factors upon (a) production per acre, (b) costs per acre, and from these, (c) profit or loss per acre.

These 12 factors are :

Proportion of production in milk (p. 4), in sheep (p. 6) in crops (p. 8), the degree of specialisation (p. 10).

Proportion of labour costs to total costs (p. 12) and to total production (p. 14), of purchased feeding stuffs to total livestock production (p. 16).

Proportion of land in arable (p. 18). See also Issue 3.

The intensity of production determined by capital . (D. 20), and the proportion of total capital invested in livestock (p. 22), in deadstock (p. 24) and in plant, implements and machinery (p. 26).

3

NOTES ON FRONTISPIECE

The position of every farm is marked, and the numbering will render identification easy. Production per acre is measured upwards and costs per acre from left to right.

The line of no-profit-no-loss, that is, where production equal costs, is shown dotted.

The farms scatter themselves on either side of this line, the profitable farms to the left and above, and the loss farms to the right and below.

The average line of the farms follows the no-profit line fairly closely, being just on the profitable side for that part of the diagram in which the majority of the farms lie.

Here are some particulars of the average line (which henceforth we will call the "trend".

At COST per Acre of : Average PRODUCTION is 1 PROFIT per acre is :

E 1 E 1/2/- 2/-

2 2/3/- 3/-

3/4/- 4/-

4 4/4/- 4/-

5 5/4/- 4/-

6 6/4/- 4/-

7 7/4/- 4/-

8 8/3/- 3/-

9/2/- 2/-

10 10/1/- 1/-

11 11/-/-

12 12/-/- CHAPTER 1

COMPARISON OF (a) PRODUCTION PER ACRE.

(b) PER CENT PRODUCTION IN MILK.

X307 9

"X30 .75

4 Ii.

*, % ,(_4.iq ..:. X2 ...... •••,. )e..4 . •. x3x5 ,0(-1 x Xz,s4 Qr , • ...-" X3o$ ; X.4 % G l.., - )(31-7... . .--e.. 34 .....x x ,.. '---..• __...... - - -"

'...-2.-ii A 1?, ..7' K3O9 )079 . ,..;f '•, x303:, .•P- R 0 DiV <,--rs0 t,/ IN MILK'

10 IS: 20 2...; Do .35 A-0 co ;5 Go ci:.; 7.; .00 •,;" 90 ';(5 These two diagrams and the trends calculated from them, establish the following facts :

(1) that ab the proportion of milk production increases, there is a decided increase in the total production per acre.

(2) that there is also a decided increase in the total costs per acre.

(3) that the increase in production is considerably greater than the increase in costs.

The four groups A, B, C and D contain exactly the same farms on each diagram. CHAPTER 1 (contd.)

COMPARISON OF (a) COSTS PER ACRE

(b) PER CENT PRODUCTION IN MILK

.2(2e 19 tS 17

12.

10 Xt S

Z9 V

xra, -2.72,)c4x5 its x,. X51, )°4 30% X 3)f, a.s3 r74X A 3o"C x3.2o 3o) x309 52x X9i 3 N. 53 X PRotkVC.T's rk f MILK

5 10 15 2o 29 30 35 40 50 55 Go (.05 70 7s so os 90 95 The dotted line on the above diagram is a .copy of the production trend as found on the opposite diagram.

At the Per Average Production Average Cost Average Profit cent of Milk per acre is : per acre is: per acre is: 0 % E 3/17/- E 4/ 4/- -_ 7/v..- 10 4/ 6/- ,4/11/... 20 4/15/... 4/19/- - 4/- 30 5/, 5/- 5/ 6/-1- 40 5/17i- 5/15/- 2/- 50 6/ 9/- 6/ 4/- 60 7/ 4/- 6/16/- 8/- 70 8/ -/- 7/ 6/- 80 8/17/- 7/17/- 20/- 90 9/16/- 8/10/- 26/- 100 10/18/.. 9/ 4/- 34/... -6

CHAPTER 1 (contd.)

COMPARISON OF (a) PRODUCTION PER ACRE

(b) PER CENT OF PRODUCTION IN SHE & WOOL

3

2 4G sto iz 14 IG IS 20 21 262S 30 32-31. 3G 3S tkia From the diagrams on these two pages, it can be established that as the proportion of sheep production increases:

(1) there is a marked fall in production per acre

(2) there is also a marked fall in costs per acre

(3) there is no appreciable difference between the fall in production and the fall in costs.

The four groups A, B, C and D contain exactly the same farms on either diagram. -7-

CHAPTER 1 (contd..)

COMPARISON OF (a) COSTS PER ACRE

(b) PER CENT OF PRODUCTION IN SHE

X 266).

: X9 11) 15 : tr% x o7'1

13 276 :

:(300"

10

<2) - x 29 oi ,r. , -•zzx3 : :3s A. ..:'1*.• 56 )(G . . Co -;(3 *---4----"X 4.3 ....,. X271. 249 '• •":3i,-, i‘5 ------_ • . x2$3 P : :)0(9 .02o ... )=179 - ct A 03 '`.' X - . sz )k3D9: "i, X9t 53 , .,.... 3 • .-- , ...... , 2..S, 1 X

2. -1. G to tz. 14 ic:, is -zo 27„ 24 2.(0 2.g 30 32 31- 36 3o 4f0 .Some appropriate figures : At the per cent Average AveraRie cost AveraRe profit of sheep Production per acre is: per acre is: per acre is: 0 % e-F, 8/11/- E 8/ 8/- 3/- 5 7/12/- 7/ 9/- 3/- 10 6/16/- 6/13/- 3/- 15 6/ 1/- 5/18/- 3/- 20 5/ 8/- 5/ 4/- V- 251 4/17/- 4/13/- 4/- 30 4/ 6/- 4/ 2/_. 4/- 35 3/17/- 3/13/- 4/- 40 3/ 9/- 3/ 5/- 4/-. -8_

CHAPTER 1 (contd.)

COMPARISON OF (a) PRODUCTION PER, ACRE

(b) PER CENT OF PRODUCTION IN CROPS

x9 10) "3o7

x2(0(0 P P

301- 24 Xx cc x 3a,3x 2.c3. X3r-, 3v; x 3 iv; ---- x'31- X21 X X 5 1x309 X So X x 1- 79 X52 30G X- ,I &11,-(3 X53 ',03 X i3i's 3 ,c9i x ZSI 3;.c % CROPS

2 4 G 2 10 12 14. 16 lq 20 32 341- 3(0 3P 4 j 77 The two present diagrams give us the following facts :

As the proportion of production in crops increases,

(1) there is a definitefall in production per acre

(2) there is a definite fall in costs per acre

(3) the fall in production is greater than the fall in costs, CHAPTER 1 (contd.)

COMPARISON OF (a) COSTS PER ACRE

(b) PER CENT OF PRODUCTION IN CROPS

a6G

14 X 37

1-• 27i; 12 0 ;k301 X 2 11 X 3cio 10 + 9 A33 X x t3 x305 C3 2-ect, X" -... X 7 Yk x ,..._----._ x2., 30 •4 X x‘... 4f '''-,Ts x 3,5 x- - - ›r" 4.3 AG 315 G 3 'X 7.---" --- ., 0gx .7.-1,:::" —1:7-- x ?(• 5 )c31z. x — isq — _...... i x 326 x. x 2#.--; x 1 ,,- x r79 30 3 ,, x ;2 13S X3' 53

C,k0P .5 X231

2 4 Co /0 11 14 ("0 20 o2 24 2.<0 N 33 32. 27<-, 32 1-0 77 Some appropriate figures :

At Per cent Average Production Average Cost Average Profit Production per acre is : per acre is: per acre is: in cro- s: 5 z 7/11/- g 6/17/- 10 6/ 9/- 6/ 4/- 5/- 15 5/18/- 5/17/- 1/- 20 VW— 5/12/- - 1/- 25 5/ 5/- 5/ 9/- - 4/- 30 5/ 1/- 5/ 6/- - 5/- 35 VW_ 5/ 4/- - 6/- 40 4/15/- 5/ 1/- - 6/- -10--

CHAPTER 1 (contd.)

THE EFFECT OF SPECIALISATION

It is scarcely pobsible to pass by the examination of the importance of the production of certain given products as contributors to profits and losses, without approachitg the problem of specialisation. Is specialisation a good thing or a bad thing ? Some say it is a Rood thing because specialisation makes it possible to introduce the maximum efficiency: because it aims,for instance, at producing a maximum number of eggs on a given area of land, or alternatively at spreading the costs of wheat production over the greatest possible area, and thereby increasing the chance of profit. Others say that specialisation is a bad thing because it places a farmer completely at the mercy of the price movements of one definite article.

Now obviously, taking as we do here, 44 farms, and for one year only, we could never establish any fact of general application. The problem of specialisation, Above all problems, requires the experience of very many years before answer can be given. Yet it may be interesting, as a beginning, to consider the results following, but every ounce of criticism should be brought to bear upon the procedure.

The first stage is the invention of a measure of specialisation, an index, as we will call it. To do this, we have taken the following steps:

(1) we have defined the most extreme case of a mixed farm as the one which,in its analysis of production, reproduces exactly the proportion3of the whole sample. Thus, pooling all 44 farms, the average per cent productions for 1930 were

Milk and Dairy Produce 46 % Crops 17% Sheep and wool 13, Cattle 3.0ci6 Poultry and eggs Pigs A farm which itself produced in these proportions we shall. call the extreme mixed farm.

(2) speaialisation involves production per cents in excess of those above. Upon such differences the index is based, but in every case the difference is multiplied by a factor so that 10Q?; production in any commodity is always represented by an index of 100. -11-

Applying this method to our sample of farms, we get the following scale :

Index Farms included Index Farms included

0 to 5 none 50 to 55 31,306,312 5 lo 36 55 60 391304 10 15 43,91,115 6o 65 9,18,138,258,266, 278,281,307 15 20 6,29,35,283 65 70 none 20 25 4;30,272,320 70 75 275,3081309 25 30 32522532179)318 75 80 none 30 35 56 80 85 315 35 40 2,11,300,305 85 90 none 40 45 301,303 90 95 34 45 50 7,284 95 100 none

When we come to consider the question: is there any connection between this index on the one hand,and production and costs on the other ? - we do not get a very valuable reply, unless there is value in a reply so negative.

There is so little relation between the index, and Production and costs, that, upon a relation diagram, the farms scatter so very much apart that a trend is so very obscure. What little trend there is goes to indicate a slight rise in p±oduction and a slight rise in costs, the increase in costs actually being a little greater than that in production.

Here are the figures :

Index Average Production Average Costs Average Profit per acre per acre per acre

0 - :e 5/ 8/- E 5/ 4/- 4/- k 10 5/11/- 5/ 7/- 4/- 20 5/15/- 5/11/- 4/- 30 5/19/- 5/15/- 4/- 40 6/ 4/- 6/ -/- 4/- 50 6/ 8/- 6/ 4/- 4/- 60 6/12/- 6/ 9/- 3/- 70 6/17/- 6/14/- 3/- 8o 7/ 2/- 6/19/- 3/- 90 7/ 7/- 7/ 4/- 3/- CHAPTER COMPARISON OF (a) PRODUCTION PER ACRE

. (b) PROPORTION OF LABOUR COSTS TO TOTAL COSTS.

X9 19 x3,07

X266 )4.276

300 39

------L____( 47;. -c`'' 3 3)2X xli5 x Yte)(< 7-)(74 9.2, C2 Y: x -CA X .„-, ,2-.3?, /3,3 5( X x32° 30‘179 X -... )\ X 9. X3i X305 315 X Abask LAi5D,A; -ro¶oii cos-rs

15 IS 2i 2ht 2.7 3'3 33 3G 39 42 From these two diagrams we get the following facts •

that as the proportion of labour costs to total costs increarzes : (1) production per acre shows a decided fall.

(2) costs per acre also fall.

(3) the two falls proceed almost at the same rate, though what little difference there is indicates a slightly greater fall in costs. CHAPTER 2 (contd.)

COMPARISON OF (a) COSTS PER ACRE

(b) PROPORTION OF LABOUR COSTS TO TOTAL COSTS

.>c

)

(4 0/ C.) tI < 0 C)

KID7

2.7 )(301

x II 10 IS 39 xioc. 'C, 2c4 - .3vi .---•=; 29y, 34 x .,. X - G —... — '4"-'04 2-1'. •=, -,. ),( 56 A- ....22.-7 7 K. 31:Z. 34,)k g x -2, pci, -,

)4,2a3 . .3•:i X 131, ..bAa 37)C 3.09 y C3 91 - 3. LABiuR CoST3 2531

ic re 21 24- 21 30 33 . )9 42 Here are some special cases :

At Per cent Average Production Average Cost Average Profit of Labour per acre is ! per acre is: per acre is:

15 jo a 8/15/- E 8/13/- 2/- 18 8/ 6/- 8/ 3/- 3/- 21 7/16/- 7/13/- 3/- 24 7/ 7/- 7/ 4/- 3/- 27 6/19/- 6/15/- 4/- 30 6/11/- 6/ 7/- 4/- 33 6/ 4/- 5/19/- 36 5/17/- 5/12/- 5/- 39 5/10/- 5/ 5/- 42 5/ 4/- 4/19/- 45 4/18/- 4/13/- 5/- -14-

CHAPTER 2 (contd.) COMPARISON OF (a) PRODUCTION PER ACRE

(b) LABOUR COST PER £100 PRODUCTION

•••• U1"7

17

xSol x

IA• -7

)03

)/14.3 "29 xG 105' 2.72 e x-27r6 !,‹ x.:••,, • /3' /

X52. x) 1.) K971. )eq, 4". x2ci it 1 ,rt t--7 t•rOc..k)L N'‘

s .zc 2(1 30 3-2. 3'P., 4/ 4+ 5+

Here we can observe these tendencies :

that as the proportion of labour cost per £100 worth of produce increases,

(1) there is a decided fall in production per acre (2) there is a slight fall in costs.

(3) the balance of these is markedly in favour of the low proportion of labour costs to £100 production. -15—

CHAPTER 2 (contd.)

COMPARISON OF (a) COSTS PER ACRE

(b) LABOUR COST PER £100 PRODUCTION

'UGC- ; ) , (2 1 \ ; : ( , / t7 : ;, / 16 , c.s...... • Izi X -• / 1'; 7 .2 ; i. :; ; ; X /` / f ..-14 (k4) I • ,..., ) ,• • (- X 27L-;. I • , . k 174 W 1,1 KZ ,..2 . .*X-7° 1 /. ( / / Y / (0 4/, 3.x 4- • , I r- / J N A ;, x 13 ; /. , '.,3,) 0 \ P e / J 1 1‘ / ; i / . x x3 cg , ?; ,)(7.-`t ,.s. \ / i i . ; 7 c )(:z9 / ... _ \ 3157 - xs'.; 1----) , -tyi-..-x 7-7...,- -_--- x3.,,.., .,..4„, . XG .27 tic• i < \ X(el--, xi --- i_ ,... •,,,,...... _„„(...... _.)L . 1 •, , •-•- / .J4. --...... ,.. ...% / \ 1 :,.., 7 • .- , I . ..*:.) • i X X () X2)(f.; )( k. 4 ;.L 3 I7x :,<'.:;.:1)( 1 :- Z'.1 .": .17.--Af.:, / \ ( Xn 1 i X XI i . S ) . ( ( k c 1 -.) / i I 0 „...,..,..,,„ ,. Frcopoc,r,.,-,41 1 • \ ,.._ ,c2,0,), ,,, I , ( i - 1 1. r f 0 i.•• _I so .. 14- .,-- tt 20 21. 24- .74 ',0 32- .7-'k• 21,9 1/1 4.7/ ‘i--1.- ,e-cr

Some figures :

At Labour Cost Average Production Average Cost Averae per £100 per acre is • L per acre is: Profit Production per acre is:

E 10 £11/18/— E 7/ 5/— 93/- 15 9/ 8/— 6/18/— 50/- 20 7/18/— 6/ 9/- 29/- 25 6/19/- 6/ 5/- 14/- 30 6/ 5/- 6/ 1/- 4/- 35 5/15/- 5/18/- - 3/- 40 5/ 6/- 5/16/- - loi- 44 4/19/- 5/13/- - 14/- 50 4/13/- 5/11/- - 18/- -a.6 -

CHAPTER 2 (contd.)

COMPARISON OF (a) PRODUCTION PER ACRE

(b) COST OF PURCHASED FOOD STUFFS TO PRODUCE £100 LIVESTOGK PRODUCE.

X9 5:)7

x's 41- 2- x ,ic .. , 3 x t; . 1.\ -..:-:--- 1, 7\344- 3k. 3531 y. A271. Y/,14 i'309

)1, iS 15X,- d" t 2. N-2€71 Foc),%-ro te,5.

C so i'27. 2-0 ./143 35 41-t) 4s 5o .-73" Go GS 1 57,' 90 95 These diagrams give us the following facts :

that as the proportion of money spent on foodstuffs,to 4 produce £100 worth of livestock products,increases,

(1) there is an increase in the production per acre

(2) there is a very strong increase in costs per acre.

(3) that the costs increase much more rapidly than the production. -1

CHAPTER 2 (contd.)

COMPARISON OF (a) COSTS PER ACRE

(b) COST OF PURCHASED FOOD STUFFS TO PRODUCE £100 LIVESTOCK PRODUCE

X2EG 19 IS trztl

go, 'et

/4 II x307

13 X275 2. 12 x 0 1/ x3oc

10 x3,1 305 C; X >0 .,--.- 3 ,:v 7 6 x 56 X.x..•::,------Cr3i5 X -;.-.7? z X)"--4&Yil 2-73. ---iic -,;(4-7, x 31-2.A ,---— ,--;‘, X5E, 5 .-- 2S 424, 3X ' X I,x zo3x v,30 3131 `V -t 30e (3t52 3Cc; X In 3 39( 'A9tX 53 2CS X2q) FooD5-FuFF5

io .20 2.3 -.3.0 35 +0 4'5 5:3 ST Go 6,3 76 15 ?-0 ifs-4;i0 (35 At Cost of Average 3'roclu:7tion Average CoGt Averarre Profit Foodstuffs per acre is : per acre is: per a3re 10% E 4/19/- E 3/131- 26/- 15 5/ 9/- 4/10/- 20 5/16/- 5/ 4/- 12/- 25 6/ 2/- 5/17/- 5/- 30 6/ 8/- 6/ 8/- 35 6/13/- 6/19/- 6/- 40 6/17/- 7/ 9/- 12/- 45 7/ 1/- 7/18/- - 50 7/ 5/- 8/ 7/- - 22/.. -.18...

CHAPTER 3 COMPARISON OF (a) PRODUCTION PER ACRE (b) PER CENT OF LAND IN ARABLE

x30-77- X9

171

XC'

3oa cv x

ti 7 Z ; X • A X x3( 29 )e3 x312. X34- g3 x'27t- • 2 x36 3o?, Z7. X f:;3 179 X3o 4320 x x 3 91 Xx... 2 36 X /14.),/c) 1 Ahip IN AR Ai3LE

3 G 9 P.. 1 i 2; 2.1- 27 3o 33 3(0 39 47_ 1-5 5c 57 60 (23 (5(--. ()9 Here we are able to ebtablish :

(1) a fall in production as the proportion of arable increases.

(2) a fali- in costs as the proportion of arable increases. (3) the ,fall in production is rather greater than the. fall in costs, —19

CHAPTER 3 contd.)

COMPARISON OF (a) OOSTS PER ACRE

(b) PER CENT OF LAND TN ARABLE

X 19 iS 17 , /5

-30 7/

13 X2T5- 3,y)

/0 -29 4 9 IS

' 2i3.41.. )(31- -Itt3cr SG X C '242 4-3 )(308 7 )/14 X3tS X >C 179 x30 9i 3' X A 3r.IG 3 5.4 Lie c; 255.3 X 2S1 LAND 'IN Alz?)13).....e

3 G 9 V2. IS a 24 24 Z73o 33 39 42.45 41-$9 57 E)0 63 Same examples :

At Per cent Average Production Average Cost Average Profit of Land in per acre is : Epr acre is: per acre is: Arable 0 o E 7/17/- z 7/ 5/- 12/- 10 7/ 5/- 6/16/- 9/- 20 6/14/- 6/ 8/- 6/- 30 6/ 4/- 6/ 1/- 3/- 40 5/15/- 5/14/- V- 50 5/ 6/- 5/ 7/- - 1/- 6o 4/18/.. 5/ li- - 3/- 70 4/11/- 4/15/- - 4/-'. -20-

OHAPTER 4

0011PARISON OF (a) PRODUCTION PER ACRE

(b) CAPITAL PER AORE

o7 X9 19 x

17

;7; A x 3o, /13

/3 3 a 39 11 /0 .9 3 4 X 30s 3o z 3a ,/147,c x+3 X x

"3 4:41 XX)k -,)( 3:.5( 4- x 3' sc. 1,-.% X 2 PWITAL. ?ER

7 :zr 1 _ 3 q- 5 7 S ioIi /2. /3 /4 It-7 re° ,7 .25 a These diagrams indicate

(1) a fairly close relationship between, production per acre and capital per acre

(2) a similar relationship between costs and capital

(3) comparison indicates that production increases .slightly more than costs,giving some advantage to intensive production. -21-

CHAPTER 4 contd.) COMPARISON OF (a) COSTS PER ACRE

(b) CAPITAL PER ACRE

x2t.

'-3 7)c '275 2 %3°' X-30° P

trc*: 39 X411 ;.< X • 305 A •-.). 3+ A 25.....*-ct 331- XX. ,..; X 1 X ,x35 6 .2,4 X A-Is=iS, 7 rx 7.2"

CAPITAL. Pr!..R.

2 3 4 1.-"; 6 7 9 to 11 /3 I-4 15 /6 17 25 227 28 some appropriate figures :

At Capital Average Average Costs Average Profit per acre Production per acre per acre per acre. £2 1/ V- 1/ 8/- 4 2/12/- 2/13/- 6 3/18/- 3/18/- 8 5/ 4/- 5/ 2/, lo 6/10/- 6/ 6/- 12 7/16/- 7/ 9/- 14 9/ 2/- 8/13/- 16 10/ 8/- 9/16/- 18 11/13/- 10/18/- 20 12/19/- 12/ 2/- -22-

CHAPTER 4 (contd.

COMPARISON OF (a) PRODUCTION PER ACRE

(b) PER CENT OF CAPITAL IN LIVESTOCK.

307 9 19 • I-S

162 i7S 16 iot>c -2.(10 t--(Y u D4C

x3oo tzi xs9 11 lb 91 x" x 2134 x7 q )& 153 X 3i:4x A4-3 34 3o5 19 X 1 X )(G G "5 x 34r g 1S3 21k x >4.2.753 S X.Ig X30 x30C ).c x 4 ....45 X.z nlo X g2- 9'x x.b5 3 x y3o3 -,, ;(6 15 2 LI4E51-0c-t<

A 4C- 4.1. +6r i(24143 5(..J 52. 54- 5G 5)3 (7,> (07-64(96 (043 70 71 7+% (g‘) From these two diagrams we can make the following observations :

As the proportion of capital in Livestock increases,

(1) there is a rise in production per acre

(2) there is a fall in costs per acre

(3) the rise in production combined with the fall in costs gives a considerable rise in profits. -23—

CHAPTER A (contd.) COMPARISON OF (a) COSTS PER ACRE

(b) PER CENT OF CAPITAL IN LIVESTOCK,

19 ZGG IS ul 11 5 16 cr ei X 9 /5 w k. It X 3cg -13 P X et X 12 0 . 3o1 t X I 00 k *3 , p . 10

x li X305 S X2151- 4 x34 304 , X3 )05 z7s — ...... G x ...... — A i — — X13 A27;c37-7-7.1 145 -x -.. G X34-u 30s 5 x2s3 3(74 C, x30 X A3d5 X179 X320 309 1 OS 7.: >c 31 x51. X A, 3 'A 2.93 9) 53 2 "Z51 Ar C.perTAL. tr4 L IV 51-csVic

3% 40 4i2 iS So 52. 5+ 5G 59 60 C.2. 6G GS 70 74 7+ 7G S Some appropriate figures : At Per cent Average _production Average costs Average Capital in per acre is : per acre are: Profit Livestock per acre 40 ia R, 5/15/— R, 6/1o/- '51- 45 5/17/- 6/ 8/- - 11/- 5o 6/ -/- 6/ 5/- - 5/- 55 6/ 3/- 6/ 3/- 60 6/ 5/- 6/ 1/- 65 6/ 8/- 5/18/- 10/- 70 6/11/- 5/16/- 15/- 75 6/14/- 5/13/- 21/- 8o 6/17/- 5/11/- 26/-. -24-

CHAPTER 4 (contd.) COMPARISON OF (a) PRODUCTION PER ACRE

(b) PER CENT OF CAPITAL IN DEADSTOOK.

x9

X 215 'A'3o1

2442

ON, ON,

Tt Tt

-

C PRODv PRODv

2. 4 7 X 35 x is X X 7 3A 56 X )(43 3 X29 x31 :6xx X s 3.4 2:51 Si 309 )2716 2-71:cx31% x'3o X53 52. X 3 '520 x 31 301 138 2?I 515 c AP rrA t N 3>EPa6 -roc<

q 10 14. 1G 20 24 2G 1i 30 cYo- 42- 44. 4K341S The trends of these diagrams show that as the proportion of capital in deadstock increases,

(1) there is a marked fall in production per acre

(2) there is a fall in costs per acre

(3) the fall in production is greater than the fall in costs. -25--

CHAPTER 4 (contd.)

-COMPARISON OF (a) .COSTS PER ACRE.

(b) PER CENT OF CAPITAL IN DEADSTOOK

zc

x9

X als

x300

,4•19

2:34 x35 )09 X3 27z -1d4 )4'79 y,3t8 A:32.0 303 r3s7 032. "40(0 3$ 25S x vgi C At:711AL (1\1 1)E.PsDS -rocK

Some appropriate figures

At Per cent Capital Average production Average costs Average in Dead-stock per acre is t per acre are Profit

g 8/ii/- E 7/41- 27/_ 10 6/18/- 20/- 7/ V- 6/12/- 15/- 0 6/16/- 6/ 7/- •9/- 25 6/ 6/- 6/ 2/- 4/- 3o 5/16/- 35 5/ 8/- 5/12/- - 4/- 40 5/ -1.- 5/ 7/- 7/- 45 4/12/- 5/ 3/- -:11/- 50 4/ 5/- ' 4/18/- -13/... —26

CHAPTER 4 (contd. CJOLI.P.),-,RISC,N OF (a) PRODUCTION PER ACRE

(b) PER CENT OF CAPITAL IN PLANT, IMPLEMENTS AND MACHINERY

9 307 X

'7

IG u275 x301 5 26‘,

/3 30o rz Ii

lo PiRc)DucTiorv PiRc)DucTiorv

ea, 7- 1.0S gStn x304- 1.4

314

5 1 _309 it I 3;( x • 3 I 9t % C e

4 S 10 12. 14 1(, 2-z_ 24 26 243 30 34 34r The trends in these cases show that as the proportion in plant,iplements and machinery,of the capital invested, increases •

(1) there is a large increase in production per acre

(2) there is a large increase in costs per acre

(3) the two increases proceed at the same rate. -27-

CHAPTER 4 (contd.) COMPARISON OF (a) COSTS PER ACRE

(b) PER CENT OF CAPITAL IN PLANT, IMPLEMENTS AND MACHINERY

X2A, 19

47

x9 15 It .507

13 X 275" )(3ot 12 Xx 3oo Ii A io Y.39 X 13 305 3+ 7 29 A x33 X X3C ;( A3... 7 x 3os , 272S .A)X X 31S 7)0 $304 os 4 .?5 32-0)(309 3 31 - 251 4tY X agi 0 CWITAL r2t4 •

.41- 10 b. ‘G 2.0 zz 2.4 2.G 2i 30 3z. Some figures :

At Per cent Average Production Average Cost AveraRe Profit Capital in per acre is : per acre is per acre is: Plant etc. 5 % E 4/12/- R, 4/ 6/- 6/- 10 5/ 4/- 4/1/._ 6/- 15 5/17/- 5/11/- 6/- 20 6/13/- 6/ 7/- 6/- 25 7/10/_ 7/ 4/- 6/- 30 8/10/- 8/ 4/- 6/- 35 9/12/- 9/ 6/- 6/-. -28-

IN CONCLUSION

This issue is placed in the hands of the members Of the

Wiltshire Agricultural Accounting Society for their discussion and criticism. If the issue receives the approval of the members, we shall endeavour to continue the scheme as part of our regular annual work. Tables of comparative results have been distributed for the last six years, and we shall repeat these for an Autumn meeting. We hope,then,to follow that meeting up with an investigation along the lines of this present issue, in readiness for a meeting in the Spring.

- We shall welcome any questions or enquiries, and are prepared to visit any farmer in connection with the results of this issue.

C. V. DAWE.

J. E. BLUNDELL. REGRESSION EQUATIONS

Production per acre (P) - Costs per acre 0 Log P = .953 (Log 0) 4- .050

Per cent production in milk Log P = ..00451 (M) 4- .586

Log C = .00338 (M) 4- ,625

Per cent production in sheep Log P - .00991 (S) 4- .932

Log C = - .01034 (S) 4- ,925

Per cent production in crops Log P = .231 (Log crops) 4- 1.042

Log C = .144 (Log crops) 4- .936

Coefficient of specialisation Log P = .00150 (CS) 4- .731

Log a= .00160 (CS) 4- .714

Per cent labour of total costs Log P = - .00845 (L) 4- 1,070

Log 0 = .00891 (L) 4- 1.070

4, Per cent labour of total production , Lq Log P -= i584 (t) 4- 1.659

Log C = .163 (L) 4- 1.023

Per cent foodstuffs of livestock production Log P = .2364 (F) g457 Log C.= .5080 (F) 4- .056 REGRESSION EQUATIONS (contd.)

Per cent of land in arable Log P .00338 (A) 4- .895

Log C = .00263 (A) 860

Capital per acre Log P .994 (Log Cap.) - .182 Log 0 = .937 (Log Cap.) - .138

Per cent of capital in livestock Log P = .00192 (L) 4. .682

Log 0 = .00174 (L) 4- .884

Per cent of cal:Y.Ga3 in deadstock Log P = .00672 (D) 1- .966

Log 0= - .00369 (D) 4- .876

Per cent of carite.I in plantl implements and machinery Log P .0107 (PIH) 4- .609

Log 0= .0112 (PIM) ADVISORY WORK.

The University V V of Bristol co—operates with the Staffs of V the Department of Agricultural Education of the Counties of Gloucester, Hereford, Somerset, Wiltshire V VV V and Worcester in providing free advice to farmers, growers and landowners VV under the Advisory Scheme of the Ministry of Agriculture. Requests for advice should, in the first instance, be addressed to the Agricultural Organiser for the county concerned.

The Organisers for the five counties in the Western (Bristol) Province are

REA, Esq., N.D.A., N.D.D., Agricultural Education Office, 2, College Street, Gloucester.

J. Li. EVANS, Esq., B.Sc., Agricultural Education Sub-Committee, Shire Hall, Hereford.

HAY, Esq., B.Sc., Somerset Farm Institute, Cannmgton, Nr. Bridgwater.

W. T. PRICE, Esq., M.C., N.D.A., N.D.D., Agricultural Department, Polebarn House, Trowbridge, Wilts.

GAUT, Esq., M Sc., ment of Agricultural County Buildings, Worcester.'

,

,

- t-' , - -

PUBLICATIONS BY THE DEPARTMENT.

BULLETIN NO. 1. Sugar Beet Trials 1926.

BULLETIN NO. 2. Sugar Beet Trials 1927 and Report of Sugar Beet Conference, February 1928.

BULLETIN NO. 3. The Effect of Different Balanced Rations on the Yield and Composition of Milk from Dairy Cows.

BULLETIN NO. 4. Mole Destruction Experiments.

BULLETIN NO. 5. The Wiltshire Agricultural Accounting Society — Analysis of Four Years' Financial Accounts.

BULLETIN NO. 6. Cost of Production of Sugar Beet in Hereford and Worcestershire (1925-6 — 1929-30).

BULLETIN NO. 7. A Bulletin for Somerset Farmers, 1925-1929. Part I. Introduction; cropping; marketing.

FARM ACCOUNTS: Continuous Series:-

ISSUE NO. 1. List of Farms.

ISSUE NO. 2. Production in Relation to Capital and Costs. 1929 Crop.

ISSUE NO. 3. Influence of Arable upon Production, 1929 Crop.

ISSUE NO. 4, Factors affecting Wiltshire Profits. 1930 Crop.