ENEMY AGRICULTURE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXXVI, Issue 3566, 28 September 1916, Page 3

ENEMY AGRICULTURE.

STRIKING OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

COMPARISON WITH BRITAIN

The most optimistic persons have now begun to doubt whether the starvation of Germany is quite so probable as they freely declared, even up to a year ago (writes a London correspondent.) Most of the authentic information which has come to hand for some time past has pointed to a shortage' rather in certain classes of ingredients —both of foodstuffs and munitions than to any general soarcity of either. That the Germans may find themselves short of fats of different kinds is not improbable, and it is quite likely that if they had to face another winter campaign they would find some difficulty in furnishing the right amount of woollen garments for their troops. But on the general question of feeding the population and army, a recent publication by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries leaves us very ' little ground for optimism: When Lord Sclborne was President of the Board of Agriculture, ho asked Mr T. H. Middleton, C.B. (the Assistant-Secretary of the 1 Board), to make a report on the development' of German agriculture with parallel references to British agriculture, during the last 30 or 40 years. This has now been published, and the whole tenor of it may be expressed in the following startling summary by Mr Middleton, showing the production from each 100 acres of cultivated land in Germany and EngLand : 1. The British farmer feeds from 45 to 50 persons, the German farmer from 70 to 75.

2. The British farmer, grows 15 tons of corn, the German farmer 33 tons.

3. The British farmer grows 11 tons of potatoes, the Gorman farmer 55 tons.

4. The British farmer produces 4 tons of moat, the German farmer 4J tons. •

5. The British farmer produces 17£ tons of milk, the German farmer 28 tons. 6. The 'British farmer produces a negligible quantity of sugar, the German farmer 2j- tons.

The progress of agriculture^ in the two countries during the last two or thveo decades may bo compared by the following table, showing the incrensod yield per acre between 1885 and 1913 (The German figures are from-1883 to 1913.)

Increased Yield Per Acre.

England.. Germany Wheat (bushel:;) .„ 1.7 11.8 Barley (bushels) ... .3 14.0 Oats (bushels ... .4 18.9 Potatoes (tons) ... .5 2.0. Meadow hay (cwt.)... 3.0 11.2

This comparison must be qualified, however, by the statement that Eng-. lish agriculture 30 years ago was in a very advanced state, and that the increases shown have not done much more than to bring the German yiWi on an equality with the English. The wheat yield is practically the same in both countries. In barley Germany produces 4 bushels more per acre; in oats, 4 bushels more; in meadow hay lOcwt. more; but in potatoes, 16cwt. less.

Natural Conditions.

Mr Middlcton' remarks that the relative production in the. 'eighties is a closer index to tho natural advantages enjoyed by farmers in England and in Germany than- tire, production just bofore tho war. He adds:. "There is very much poor land in Germany. On- ;• Jy one-fifth of the soil of Prussia, for example, can be classed as good; twofifths consists of indifferent loams, and two-fifths is very poor. The climate ■ of Germany may, on the whole, be better adapted for the ripening and ■ ingathering of corn than tho British climate, but it 'is certainly not so well suited for the growing of large % crops of grain, potatoes, roots, and j. hay as our own." x Count yon Schwerin-Lowitz, Presi- c dent of the German Agricultural Conn- c eil, in the recent rather notorious pub- £ . lieation, "Germany under Kaiser WilHam II.," makes such a good case for intensive culture that he is almost car- j ri'ed away into denying that there_ is such a thing as ft law of' diminishing ( returns in agriculture. Ho says: "It ( is a technical error to suppose that the present production of corn crops cannot be maintained or increased except | at the cost of a decrease of the num- j her of animals kept on the farms. In , this respect our development in the , last quarter of a century has been very '. instructive. During this period our . corn production has increased on the ) average by 50 per cent.'; our production of animals and' meat has increased by over 100 per cent," The figures aro as follow :— 1883. 1912. Increase pei" cent Horses .1.522,000 . 4.516.000 28.2 Oittlc 15.786,000 20.155.000 27.7; Pio-s 0,206.000 21.880.000 137.7 Goiits 2,640,000 3,383.000 26.1 Sheep are the. only class of animals that show a falling-off. and there the decrease is very striking. Tho figures a re:■ —, 1883 1912. Decrease •per cent. Sheep 19,18!).000 5,767,000 69.8 From the food point of view, this I'a-lling-ofl' ,must be considered in conjunction with the increase in pigs, which almost counterbalances it. But from the point of view of wool, it remains to be considered. The pig is much more productive than the sheep :is a source of meat, but Mr Middlekm also points out, "the change is also due to the Germans' love of pork and to the increase of co-operative dairy farming among tho small farmers of Germany which makes extensive pigkeeping profitable." Meat Production. Since. Germany has been increasing the. production of grain, potatoes, and sugar, while Britain ha.s concentrated on" meat and milk, it is usually supposed that in our yield of the latter wo are much ahead of Germany. Mr Middleton had a calculation prepared on this point, and the result is as follows :— Great Britain. Germany. 31,900,000 82,274,000 acres of eul- acres of cultivated land, tivatcd, land Production per 100 acres Tons. Tons.. Beef 1.49 1.29 Mutton .82 .09 Pork, hams and Bacon 90 2.42 Other butcher meat .31 — Poultry and eggs .36 .47 Total moat ...... 3.97 4.27 Milk • 17.4 28.1 The possibility of; starving Germany by withholding cereals docs not look

very bright in the light of another table showing that, of the total German requirements, she produces within her own borders 100 per cent, of the rye, 98 per cent, of the potatoes, 97 per cent, of the oats, and 67 per cent, of the wheat. The shortage of wheat will probably be easily recoverable through her access to the wheat crops of Roumania. Huriyarv a.nd such p»"l;ioils of Russia and Belgium as she now oc-

cupies.' "Taken as a whole." Mr Middlcton says, "the average German farmer 'devotes much more space than the English farmer to -crops—like potatoes— which produce large quantities of human food. An acre ''under potatoes would usually ,' produce ten. times as much human food as an aero under pasture, and an acre under sugarbeet may produce from I.V to twice as much food as an acre under potatoes. The Human Product. What matters much more to Germany than it has done in the: past to Great. Britain is the relative production of cannon-fodder from agriculture and from industry.. The same, standard work that has beeim quoted before shows-that for each 100. men which the German .authorities estimated would 1 be forthcoming for military service, there were actually supplied the following :— . By large cities: 65 lit for service. By towns: 85 fit- for service. 'By country districts and villages: " ■ 114 fit for service. | According to Mr Middlcton, the average number' of persons wholly or partly engaged in agriculture in Ger-' m:vvy is 18.3 i>er 100 acres, and in Britain. 5.8. Counting those perma-nently-employed, the figures are less j prono'uncod—-12:2 and 4.6. The German farmer annually ploughs more than twice as;much of his holding as the British farmer. "There is also a j great difference in ihc number of temporary labourers. Because of the winter employment provided by the extensive woodlands aad by such rural industries as beet-sugar and starch! manufacture, the Gorman fanner has a marked :i<!v;:ntage over the British farmer in the number of temporary workers ho e»a secure at busy seasons. In some parts of the country, espcemily in beet-'Grrowing districts, the German fanner may also count on -ramsiderablo numbers of migratory labourers.' The net result is that per 100 acres live times as many persons (mainly women) aro temporarily employed on the land in Germany as in Britain."

There can lie little doubh that Ger-. man agricultural policy during tho last 40 years has been designed, almost as a branch pi'- the army, 'for- war purposes. • Mr Middleton makes a point of the fact that in &or many an overwhelming percentage of tho farmers own the land they work; therefore there is greater incentive for each man to get the ■utmost possible fropi it. Another point worthy of mention is tho con-

elusion arrived at comparing the English farmer with tho C4erman _ farmer, the former is not behind in his methods, but the latter has the'advantage because he uses a- great deal of chemical manures; here and there we find a farmer in this country using a little chemical eriricher for his soil, but comparatively its employment is almost nil.