DISADVANTAGES OF SMALL HOLDINGS 55 



etc., in practice the organization at the command of 

 the farmer on a large scale secures an equal or a better 

 result. It is true to say that in districts where in- 

 tensive cultivation is practised by both small and 

 large occupiers, the actual cultivation is better, the 

 gross production and the net profits are larger upon 

 the holdings of 50 to 100 acres than upon those of 

 from 5 to 20 acres. In fact, the really good small 

 holder soon gets possession of a larger acreage, and 

 ceases to be a small holder. 



(4) It follows that small holdings are only likely to 

 answer for such forms of agriculture as produce a 

 large gross return per acre, and when the proportion 

 that manual labour bears to the other costs of pro- 

 duction is high. This almost confines successful small 

 holding to the production of vegetables, fruit, and 

 flowers ; as regards the production of meat and corn, 

 and to some extent of milk, the small holder cannot 

 compete with the large. It is doubtful whether the 

 market for fruit and vegetables is capable of consider- 

 able expansion ; it is indeed probable that after the 

 war it will shrink with the general poverty of the 

 nation and only extend again slowly. Akin to this 

 restriction is the fact that small holdings only answer 

 on good land, or at any rate on light land that is 

 responsive to fertilizers and easily worked. They 

 must also have good access to markets. Many large 

 areas in the kingdom the chalk uplands, the clays 

 of the Midland counties, can be profitably farmed on 

 a large scale but cannot produce rapidly enough to 

 satisfy a small holder. 



(5) The small holder, with his limited capital, is at 



