AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION 1. British Agriculture: The Nation's Opportunity. By the Hon. E. G. STRUTT, LESLIE SCOTT, M.P., and G. H. ROBERTS, M.P. Murray. 1917. 2. Agriculture after the War. By A. D. HALL. Murray. 1916. 3. The Land and the Empire. BY CHRISTOPHER TURNOR. Murray. 1916. 4. The Recent Development of German Agriculture. By T. H. MIDDLETON, C.B. Board of Agriculture. 1916. 5. Agriculture in Oxfordshire. By JOHN ORR. Oxford University Press. 1916. WRIT WRITING in this Review after the first year of the war, the present Minister of Agriculture said : * Some part of the unfavourable impression which has been 'formed of agriculturists is due to impatience that they have not at once realised the complete, though in all probability temporary, change in the national view of British agriculture.' At the present time there are signs that the change in the national view of the importance of the agricultural industry will become permanent. It is still possible that the great urban consuming communities may be content to return to a system of laissez faire, as regards agriculture, after the declaration of peace, for the purpose of obtaining comparatively cheap and varied supplies of food; but the longer the war lasts and the greater the difficulty of maintaining the supply of food the less probable this contingency becomes. From the beginning of the improvement in the market for agricultural produce, about 1907, there was almost continual discussion of social problems arising from the agricultural system-such as the wages and housing of labour. The problems of production, however, received little attention, except where they came in contact. with such contentious subjects as 'land monopoly' and the Game Laws. Since the beginning of 1915 this subject has been rising to the fore, and recently steps have been taken to EDINBURGH REVIEW, October 1915. stimulate production. The problem is an immediate one: on its solution may depend in a large degree the condition of the population during the remaining period of the war. But on the ultimate solution more than this depends-namely, the future of our largest industry and the future of rural England. The interests of the whole of the population are centred in the available supplies of food during the next few monthsperhaps during the next few years; but directly the sea-routes are open, and shipping is plentiful, interests may become divergent. This depends to some extent upon the decision arrived at by the urban consumers as to the possibility of future wars of the present magnitude and extent, and the necessity for national organisation for defence. Should it appear probable after a declaration of peace that there would be no fresh outbreak of hostilities for many years, or that wars of any magnitude would be impossible in the foreseeable future, the consuming classes may be unwilling to undertake any financial burden in the shape of bounties or tariffs for the immediate stimulation of agricultural production. On the other hand, if a current opinion that wars are inevitable spreads and develops, British agriculturists may find that they must submit to an amount of State interference and control, in addition to financial assistance, hitherto undreamed of by those engaged in the industry. In the first case the agriculturists must depend entirely upon their own efforts for the solution of the essential economic difficulties. Some questions of social importance—such as the remuneration of labour on one hand, or the quality and cleanliness of food supplies on the other-may be dealt with by the State. Facilities for education and research may also be provided by public money. But the great problems of the best systems of the organisation of production and marketing goods must be solved by the agriculturists, largely on their own initiative, as the State would probably decline to do more than provide the indirect means by which these problems can be solved-such as improving educational facilities and subsidising promising efforts for improvement during the earlier stages. In the latter case, the position of the agriculturist, both owner and cultivator of land, may progressively develop into that of a State deputy for the production of the maximum amount of food from the land he controls. The political aspect of these possibilities is vaguely seen by the consuming population; but many of the agricultural aspects of the situation have as yet received little or no attention from the general public. Much has been said and written about the decrease of agricultural production during the last forty years; but in the political discussion of such a subject in a country in which not more than one-sixth of the population has any detailed knowledge of the industry, or is directly concerned with the methods of production adopted, there is likely to be a large margin of error. The facts necessary for a sound judgment are not always available, and the principles are sometimes obscure. Statistics which have not been expressly compiled for the purpose of comparing the production at different periods may provide a rough guide to judgment; but when used without the accompaniment of certain necessary qualifications they are apt to be misleading. Thus Mr. A. D. Hall has tabulated the supposed decline in the agricultural output of England and Wales between 1872 and 1913 as follows: In explanation of this table he writes: 'The comparison is made between the output of 1913 and that of 1872, assuming the prices of 1908 and the same yields per acre and production from a given head of stock in the two years. Only wheat, barley, potatoes, milk and milk products, meat, and wool are supposed to be sold, the other crops being consumed in feeding the stock. The table exaggerates the actual output in 1872 as regards quantity, because at that time the yields per acre were somewhat lighter, and a given head of stock did not produce so much meat in a year because of their slower maturity, though, on the other hand, there was less purchase of foreign grain and feeding stuffs in 1872. More correctly the table may be taken to represent what would have been the output in 1913 had the acreage, etc., remained the same as in 1872. It will be seen that the value of the output from the increased head of cattle barely balances the loss on the sheep, and if we take the pigs into account the lessened production of wheat and barley is not compensated for at all by the increase in the produce from the stock.' * Mr. Christopher Turnor, again, states that: 'The seriousness of the fact that, in spite of the fair prices which have maintained during the past seven or eight years, the total production of our soil tends to decrease, cannot be over-emphasised. The decrease would be much more noticeable if it were not for the fact that in certain areas there has been a great development of intensive cultivation in the way of market gardening, and the increase in this direction has made the decrease in actual farm produce less apparent.' † When these statements are closely examined it will be seen that they require considerable qualifications. Take first the question of cattle. The Agricultural Statistics' are collected in June of each year, and they represent the number of animals in each class on farms at that date. They do not represent output, except very indirectly. In the case of milch cattle, it must be remembered that the average yield of milk per cow has increased enormously since 1872. Many able agriculturists have estimated the average net yield of milk per cow at various times during this period. The net average yield per cow might now be put at 440 gallons per annum. In 1872 the net yield of 1,773,611 cows * Agriculture after the War, pp. 23, 24. and heifers would be 592,000,000 gallons, while the net yield of 2,264,403 cows and heifers in 1913 would be nearly 996,000,000 gallons. In the case of 'other cattle' a similar change has occurred. In the 'seventies it was common custom to keep cattle for feeding purposes until they were four or five years of age, and they were sometimes kept till they were six or seven years old. This meant that they appeared in the 'Agricultural Statistics' several years in succession, keeping up the number of stock on farms, but actually reducing output. To-day it is quite common to fatten off cattle between two and three years of age, and more go to the butcher at three years or under than over three years of age. Some beef cattle are slaughtered at less than two years. The 'Statistics' themselves confirm this statement. In 1872, 42 per cent. of the 'other cattle' were above two years of age, while in 1913 only 33 per cent. were above that age. Thus the total number of cattle sold for slaughter in each year was much greater in proportion to the total number kept in 1913 than in 1872. The bases on which estimates of carcass weight have been made at different periods have been various, and it is difficult to make comparisons. But, age for age, carcass weights are probably higher now than in the earlier period. The average dressed carcass weight of cattle killed in 1913 would be about 700 lb., and if this figure be taken for the former year it is clear that the present annual output of beef is greater in proportion to the number of cattle kept on farms than in the 'seventies, because fewer cattle now appear in the 'Agricultural Statistics' more than once, after they have reached the age of two years, than in the former period. Also, it is well known that the increase in live-weight or carcass weight of animals per day or week decreases with rising age. Animals over three years of age give less return in live-weight per unit of food consumed than animals under that age; so the beef now produced is the product of a smaller comparative amount of food than in 1872. This is also true in the case of sheep. Some lambs are marketed before the 'Agricultural Statistics' are collected for the year of their birth, and consequently they are not enumerated at all. The number of these in recent years has been greater than in the 'seventies. But all sheep are marketed for slaughter at an earlier age than they used to be, and, conse |