Arable v. Pasture.

Northland Age, Volume 27, Issue 38, 14 October 1927, Page 5

Arable v. Pasture.

A point which is subject to much popular misapprehension is the question of the relative merits of arable farming versus pasture. This, as Mr. Whetham clearly points out, is very largely a ques-

tion of soil and climate. In the west of England, where there is much rain, it does not pay to plough up heavy land; it is mere profitable to leave it in grass. In the eastern counties, on the other hand, where there is a good deal of light soil and less rainfall, good pasture is unattainable, and arable farming is more profitable. There is, however, a considerable quantity of land in England which can be used either for zrable or for pasture. In these cases the decision rests upon considerations of costs and prices. It is true that a slightly greater Mod value can be obtained from plough land than from grass 1 ind, but it can only be obtained st a greater cost of human labonr. (in this point Mr. Whetham gives sinking figures taken troin a comparison of a large number of English farms. The annual production per acre from arable was £6 1 os, as against £6 7s from grass, but the receipts per man were £261 on the arable as against £427 on the grass land. The explanation is simple : tewer labourers are employed on grass land than on plough land. Thus the nation obtains more value with less effort. Incidently, Mr Whetham points out that it is utterly unsound to measure, as many politicians are in the habit of doing the importance of an industrial process by the amount of labour it employs. If that were to be our principle we ought to scrap all the machinery that has been built in the past hundred years and go back to hand labour.