158 Large and Small Holdings 



show this relative decrease of horses kept as the holding grows, though 

 it must be remembered that the statistics showing the number of 

 horses on the various units of holding refer to holdings of all kinds, 

 pasture as well as arable : and also that the number of horses kept 

 does not depend simply on the requirements of the plough, but on 

 various other circumstances, especially in the case of small holdings. 

 Taking the first point into consideration it is evident that the number 

 of horses per 100 acres on small arable holdings must be much larger 

 than would appear from the figures given below : for the holdings 

 enumerated must include thousands of small pasture farms on which 

 no horses at all were kept. But the second consideration mentioned 

 makes in the other direction, since if all horses not kept for ploughing 

 purposes were deducted there would be a great diminution of numbers, 

 especially in the case of the smaller holdings. Only within these 

 limits can the figures be used to show that arable farming on a small 

 scale entails a greater relative expense for horses than on a large 

 scale. The following table gives the percentage of arable land in the 

 total area under consideration, as well as the number of horses kept 

 per 100 acres. 



Class Percentage Horses kept 



of Holding of Arable land per 100 acres (1885) 



i 5 acres 26*87 7 '4 



520 2470 5-6 



2050 33-31 5-3 



50100 42-48 4-9 



100300 47-92 4-3 



300500 53-09 3-8 



5001000 58-06 2-3 



over looo 53-90 2'6 



Thus while the percentage of arable land increases in the larger 

 holdings, the number of horses kept per acre decreases considerably. 

 Even under the limitations indicated above, the result shows clearly 

 that fewer horses are needed for large than for small arable holdings. 

 It appears that while on holdings of I to 5 acres, about 29 horses are 

 kept per 100 acres of arable, holdings of 5 to 25 acres have about 22, 

 but holdings of over 1000 acres not more than 5. It is clear that 

 the main proposition is established, though the difference would not 

 be so extraordinarily great if it were possible to take the necessary 

 limitations into calculation. 



Haggard also gives some instructive figures (in op. cit. Vol. II, pp. 190 f.) as to the horses 

 kept on 14 holdings in Epworth. According to these, holdings of 20, 25 and 30 acres keep 

 two horses, while holdings of 50, 80 and even 100 acres only keep three. 



