The Guardian (And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times.) THURSDAY, JUNE 14th, 1923.

Hokitika Guardian, 14 June 1923, Page 2

The Guardian (And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times.) THURSDAY, JUNE 14th, 1923.

FOOD PRODUCTION IN WAR. A hf.fewknck is made below to the agriculture position in Groat Britain. The subject is of vital importance to the Empire, for what affects tho Homeland so seriously must reflect also on tho oversea portions of the British domain. The subject of food production has just been discussed in a very able treatise prepared by tbe Deputy Director-General of the Food Production Department, the writer of this treatise on tho facts and considerations respecting tho output of food by the soils of the United Kingdom during the war, is well qualified to deal with his subject. He points out that, in the compilation of this volume, two classes of readers have been kept in view; those who havo no knowledge of the technical processes of agriculture, hut are interested in the sources of the nation’s food supply, and in the capacity of the United Kingdom for supporting its people and tiiose agriculturists who may desire to study their subject from a new angle, or at least from an angle new to the farmers of this generation. The plan of the volume is as follows: —Chapter one sketches tho situation created by the war following on a long term of peace —tho “Waygoing*’ after the lease; and chapters two to five deal with the stock-taking that the ending of a lease calls for. In chapter two the resources at the disposal of the farmer, in chapters three and four his output of food, and in chapter five the total amount of the nation’s home-grown food supply are discussed. The following five chapters relate the story of the war harvests, chapter eleven briefly refers to the cost of tho food production campaign, and chapter twelve summarises the results of war farming and alludes to some questions which face the farmer under the vory uncertain “tenure” on which lie now holds his land. Tho war certainly brought the country face to face with the vital importance of the extensive utilisation of its soils, but, as the writer points out little increase can he expected if, pursuing our pre-war policy, the non-ngricultiiral classes of the community regard homo food production as a subject that does not affect their interests. “Concerted measures are necessary in peace, as they were in war if the output of the land is to be increased.” The total area under cultivation in the L'nited Kingdom in 1914 amounted to 46,764,000 acres, while, in addition, farmers had 15,445,000 acros of rough grazings on mountains, moorlands, and heaths; in 1918, the total cultivated area was 46.27 millions. It is pointed out, however, that a small part of this loss, compared with the 1914 figure, was due to tho occupation of land for war purposes, but most of it was no doubt duo to incomplete returns. It may be doubted, therefore, whether tbe total urea, was substantially less in 1918 than it was in 1914. As to live stock, ihcro was an increase of cattle in 1919 as compared with 1914, tho figures being 12.18 and 12.49 millions, /respectively. Sheep, however, fell from 27.96 to 2-5.12 millions and pigs from 3.9,> to 2.92 millions. Summarising the effects of tho war on the supply of home-groan food the writer states that whereas the country began the war with supplies provided by its own soil which would have sufficed for 125 days out of 365, in the year in which the Armistice was signed it had secured a harvest that would have sufficed for 125 days out of the 365, in the year in which the Armistice was signed it had secured a harvest that would have sufficed foiled days out of 365. The crops were grown and the live stock were fed under conditions that were altogether abnormal; but the land’s extra produce was equivalent to the supply of 30 days’ food for tbe nation living its normal life. The question “Is it possible for the United Kingdom to feed its entire population, or at least to supply all necessary foods, except tho small per centage that could only be grown in tropical or semi-tropical countries?” is dismissed as being absurd. “It would require more than twenty million acres of land to supply the grain alone that is consumed in the country and to secure this quantity of grain it would be necessary to plough every acre of cultivated land not subject to flooding and not too far above sealevel to prevent corn irom . ripening. The east would be prohibitive.” This publication is one of the British series of tho eeonomio and social history of the wj\r, published op bogalf of

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.