Many causes have combined to produce that undesirable result. The
concentration of land-ownership in the hands of big landowners; the
high profits obtained previously; the development of a class of both
landlords and farmers who rely chiefly upon other incomes than those
they draw from the land, and for whom farming has thus become a sort
of pleasant by-occupation or sport; the rapid development of game
reserves for sportsmen, both British and foreign; the absence of
men of initiative who would have shown to the nation the necessity
of a new departure; the absence of a desire to win the necessary
knowledge, and the absence of institutions which could widely spread
practical agricultural knowledge and introduce improved seeds and
seedlings, as the Experimental Farms of the United States and Canada
are doing; the dislike of that spirit of agricultural co-operation to
which the Danish farmers owe their successes, and so on--all these
stand in the way of the unavoidable change in the methods of farming,
and produce the results of which the British writers on agriculture
are complaining.[44] But it is self-evident that in order to compete
with countries where machinery is largely used and new methods of
farming are resorted to (including the industrial treatment of farm
produce in sugar works, starch works, and the drying of vegetables,
etc., connected with farming), the old methods cannot do; especially
when the farmer has to pay a rent of twenty, forty, and occasionally
fifty shillings per acre for wheat-lands.
* * * * *
It may be said, of course, that this opinion strangely contrasts with
the well-known superiority of British agriculture. Do we not know,
indeed, that British crops average twenty-eight to thirty bushels
of wheat per acre, while in France they reach only from seventeen
to twenty bushels? Does it not stand in all almanacs that Britain
gets every year £200,000,000 sterling worth of animal produce--milk,
cheese, meat and wool--from her fields? All that is true, and there
is no doubt that in many respects British agriculture is superior to
that of many other nations. As regards obtaining the greatest amount
of produce with the least amount of labour, Britain undoubtedly took
the lead until she was superseded by America in the Bonanza farms
(now disappeared or rapidly disappearing). Again, as regards the fine
breeds of cattle, the splendid state of the meadows and the results
obtained in separate farms, there is much to be learned from Britain.
But a closer acquaintance with British agriculture as a whole
discloses many features of inferiority.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account