BRITISH AGRICULTURE AND THE WAR.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 16538, 11 November 1915, Page 4

BRITISH AGRICULTURE AND THE WAR.

Is connection with Mr Asquith's referencb to. the ■excessive volume of British imports, which is jiartly due to the country's dencndence upon tho outside world in the matter of food supply, it is pertinent to note that much dissatisfaction litis been expressed regarding the failure to hasten radical reform o? agricultural methods in England. Suoh an incapacitation of the navv as would jeopardise the regular carriage of food to the United Kingdom is almost inconccivable, but- if it were not virtually outside the range of tragic possibilities the populace would be within easily measurable distance of starvation — starvation or surrender. Even if it be safe to dismiss this thought as a chimerical figment, the mere economic consideration

would remain urgently pressing. "We aro paying," observes an English writer, "millions of pounds to other countries for foodstuffs which could he produced in this country, and the land which could produce them is being wasted. The capability of England to produce far more foodstuffs than she does is not a question open to argument. It is agreed by all authorities and experts tfhat she can do so." But this end will never be achieved, according to competent observers, unless Government and Parliament step in with compulsory action—practically doing the work themselves. It is said to be hopeless to look for voluntary enterprise on the part of the British farmer. He is (speaking generally) ultra-conservative and intolerant of counsel. Stern critics do not hesitate to add that he is at once selfish and 1 stupid (for his Selfishness is short-sighted). The Board of Agriculture showers leaflets of practical advice upon him. He puts the leaflets in the fire. Methods which were good enough for his father and grandfather are good enough for him, and he 'will not insult the memory of ''the rude forefathers of the hamlet" by paying heed to new-fangled notions. The war has neither clarified his intelligence nor widened his outlook. It just bothers and muddles him—that is all. Of course, there are many exceptions, but there is ground for believing that the general indictment, as we ha/ve summarised it, is only too valid. To quota from an English provincial journal, mainly concerned with the agricultural interest : The farmer does not take notice of advice. He is convinced that he knows far better than a man who has devoted many years to the study of scientific crop production, the varying natures of soils, their suitability for different crops, manuring, drainage, and the multifarious other items -which go to make up the business of an agriculturist. The farmer -disregards all this because his view of the matter is whether he is getting a satisfactory cash return from his hind. The view which should be taken in the interests of the country is whether the land is producing what it can. Tho fanner ought not to bo permitted to waste a large proportion of tho productive power of his land bccause ho does not want tho trouble which a more intensive system of agriculture would necessitate. Everybody in the country is today paying more for many classes of food because of this attitude of the English farmers.

The moral is that, if the necessary reform is to be effected, and if the national resources are to be •developed and husbanded as elementary prudence dictates, the voluntary system in agriculture must virtually go by the board, and the State, with its available expert assistance, must assume large measures of power in respect to the production of foodstuffs. The average farmer, when the forcible interference with antique practice takes place, will probably be as astonished and as indignant as wag his forerunner, in Tennyson's dialect poem, when the parson told him that his time had come and the Almighty was taking him : "Do God Almighty know what He be doing a-taking of me ?" -