502 



NATURE 



[December 15, 1921 





Economic conditions are subject to continual 

 change, and the variations may be both sudden 

 and extreme. This makes it the more needful to 

 be continually recording experience and to 

 examine it for the facts that emerge from which 

 to obtain guidance for future policy. Much in- 

 formation is required both for national and in- 

 dividual guidance. Of late years, for example, 

 there has been much advocacy of more intensive 

 cultivation of the soil ; it is said that by closer 

 settlement and more intensive methods the pro- 

 duction from the land could be much increased. 

 On the other hand, there are those who advocate 

 a development of extensive farming as being the 

 only means by which to attract capital to the land 

 and to pay the highest wage to the worker. Both 

 sides to this controversy can and do produce evi- 

 dence in support of their views, and some figures 

 derived from a survey made by my colleague, Mr. 

 J. Pryse Howell, will serve to illustrate both. The 

 total area surveyed was 9,390 acres, divided into 

 fifty-two farms of various sizes, and the region 

 was selected by reason of the uniformity of the 

 general conditions. All available data for each 

 holding were collected, and after grouping the 

 farms according to acreage the figures were 

 thrown together and averaged for each group, 

 with the following result : — 



Production per Unit of Land and per Unit of 

 Labour from Holdings of Various Sizes. 



It will be noted that the conditions under which 

 the farming is carried on in the various groups 

 show no material differences as between one group 

 and another, except in the matter of area. There 

 is a tendency for rent to fall as the size of the 

 holdings increases, but it is not pronounced, and 

 in one case (Group IV.) the percentage of grass- 

 land to arable land is considerably higher than in 

 the rest ; but, considering the variations which 

 must be expected in the conditions prevailing 

 over any area of fifteen square miles, it may 

 be claimed that in respect of altitude, quality of 

 land, and proportion of arable to grass the hold- 

 ings in these five groups are fairly comparable. 

 Taking the results as they stand, the fact emerges 

 that employment and production vary inversely 

 with the size of the holding, but that the pro- 

 duction per man employed varies directly with 

 the size of the holding. Thus, on one hand, 

 the advocates of closer settlement and the in- 

 tensive methods which must necessarily follow if 

 men are to live by the cultivation of small areas 

 of land would seem to be justified in that the 

 results shown by the survey indicate the highest 

 NO. 2720, VOL. 108] 



amount of employment and the greatest product- 

 value in the smaller groups. On the other hand, 

 the advocates of more extensive methods of farm- 

 ing can point to their justification in that it is clear 

 that the efficiency of management is greatest in 

 the larger groups if the standard of measurement 

 be that of product-value per man employed. 



However, it is clear that either party is drawing 

 conclusions from incomplete data. The efficiency 

 of any farming system can be judged only by ai\ 

 examination of the extent to which all the factors 

 of production are utilised and balanced under it. 

 Each of the assumptions made from the figures 

 above ignores entirely the factor of capital. Land, 

 labour, and capital are all required for production, 

 and the optimum system of farm management is 

 that which utilises all three together so as to 

 secure the maximum result from each. If in- 

 formation were available as to the capital utilised 

 in each of the five groups in the survey it might 

 be found that in the smaller groups labour was 

 being wastefully employed, and that an equal 

 number of men working on a larger area of land 

 with more capital, in the form of machinery equip- 

 ment, would produce an equal product- value per 

 unit of land with a higher rate of output per man 

 employed. Equally it might be found that in the 

 larger groups the use of more labour, or a re- 

 duction in the area of land, might produce the 

 same product-value per man with a higher rate 

 of output per unit of land. Obviously there can 

 be no absolute answer to the question of what 

 constitutes the most economical unit of land for 

 farm production. The quality of land in certain 

 cases, and market, transport, and climatic con- 

 ditions in many more, make it impossible to deter- 

 mine even within wide limits the size of the hold- 

 ing on which the principal factors of production 

 can be employed with maximum effect. Within 

 similar areas, however, and in limited districts, 

 much work can and should be done by agricultural 

 economists to collect evidence on this point for 

 the information of all concerned with the adminis- 

 tration of land. 



Another matter of the utmiost importance to the 

 farmer and to the public alike, and one which is 

 crying out for investigation on a large scale, •- 

 the distribution and marketing of farm produn 

 Attention has been directed many times to the 

 discrepancv between the price realised by the pro- 

 ducer and the price paid by the consumer for the 

 same article. In connection with market-garden 

 produce, for example, the Departmental Com- 

 mittee on the Settlement or Employment on the 

 Land of Discharged Sailors and Soldiers stated in 

 their Report (Cd. 8182, 1916) that "the disparity 

 between the retail prices paid for market-garden 

 produce in the big towns and the small portion 

 of those prices received by the growers is utterh 

 indefensible. It demonstrates a degree of ecor 

 omic waste which would ruin any other industry. 

 No evidence was published by the Committee as 

 to the facts upon which this conclusion was based, 

 but a recent inquiry made by the Ministry of Agrf- 



