194 



NA TURE 



[June 28, 1906 



factors of production, the organisation of tlie farm, 

 tlie size of farms, tlie prices of ag;ricultural products, 

 tlie distribution of wealth, the value of land, the 

 methods of its acquisition, and the relations between 

 landlord and tenant. He uses the term " capital- 

 goods " to represent the live-stock and implements 

 essential to agricultural production, and the word 

 " capital " to represent the money-value of capital- 

 goods. Land, capital-goods, and labour being the 

 three factors of agricultural production, he discusses 

 the economic properties of each. In regard to labour, 

 which includes the work of the farmer himself, he 

 advances some interesting economic propositions, 

 especially as to the " qualitative and quantitative 

 efificiency of farmers " — qualitative efficiency relating 

 to the return a man can obtain from a given piece 

 of land with a given supply of capital-goods, and 

 quantitative efficiency to the quantity of land and 

 capital-goods which a man can ooerate. He shows 

 that the farmer with the highest degree of qualitative 

 efficiency can make not only more than a living upon 

 land of any grade, but that he can make the largest 

 net profit on the most productive land after out- 

 bidding all competitors for its use. Thus, " owing 

 to the higher rents which the more efficient are 

 willing to pay for the better grades of land, the 

 farmer can secure the largest net profit by employ- 

 ing that grade of land which corresponds to his 

 degree of qualitative efficiency." 



In discussing the principles which determine dif- 

 ferent methods of farming, the author points out 

 that whereas formerly agricultural conditions de- 

 manded that farms should produce all that was 

 required by the cultivators, modern conditions of 

 increased population and improved facilities of 

 transport have given rise to what is described as 

 commercial agriculture, the system under which agri- 

 cultural produce is grown in bulk, and marketed 

 in return for other commodities required but no 

 longer produced by the seller. 



In this country we pride ourselves upon the superior 

 vield of our agricultural crops. This is, however, due 

 to a system of intensive cultivation, and Dr. Taylor 

 shows that the extensive system of cultivation as pur- 

 sued in the United States is that which is at present 

 best suited to the economic conditions of the country. 

 Pressure of population in the older States of the 

 .American Union is already causing a more intensive 

 cultivation than that previously followed. " In new 

 countries," Dr. Taylor writes, " where land is re- 

 latively abundant, extensive culture is generally most 

 profitable, and the average size of farms is usually 

 greater than in older countries where land is scarce, 

 land values very high, and intensive culture most 

 profitable." 



Incidentally, the book contains many statistical 

 details relating to the United States that are not 

 readily accessible to the general reader. For instance, 

 the land area of the United States is given as 

 1,900,947,200 acres. The area of the United Kingdom 

 is 77,671,319 acres. The percentage of improved 

 land, or, as we describe it, " land under crops and 

 grass," is in the United .States about 22, in England 

 \'0. 1913, V( iL. 74] 



about 76, and in Germany about 60. Again, with re- 

 gard to the size of farms, in the United States the 

 average is given as 146-6 acres. In England it is- 

 about 65 acres (or 85 acres if holdings above one acre 

 and not above five acres be not included) ; in 

 Germany it is 19-2 acres, and in France 21.4 

 acres. This variation in the average size of hold- 

 ings is, of course, significant of the different systems 

 of land tenure, tenant-farming prevailing in England 

 and peasant-proprietorship in France and Germany. 

 In the United States most of the land is either culti- 

 vated by its owners or on the sharing principle. 

 According to the census of 1900, the different classes 

 of farmers in the United States are represented in. 

 the following; proportions : — 



Owneis 

 Part Owners 

 Owners and Ten 

 Managers ..- 

 Cash Tenants 

 Share Tenants 



54 '9 per cent- 



79 



09 



I o ,, 

 13-1 



22'2 ,, 



An interesting description is given of the .'\mericar» 

 system of " share-tenancy," which is scarcely, if at 

 all, practised in this country. The principle of it is 

 something akin to metayage, as adopted in France, 

 Italy, and Spain. A share-tenant in America pays 

 for the use of the farm a proportion (such as one- 

 third or one-half) of the crops cultivated. The share 

 is delivered to the owner in kind. The owner par- 

 ticipates in the management of the farm, and, in 

 fact, directs all the more important operations. 

 Under this system the landlords are usually the older 

 and more experienced men, who own more land than 

 they can well cultivate, whilst the tenants are younger 

 men who prefer share tenancy to fixed rent, because 

 their risk of loss is less. 



(3) Denmark is a concrete example of the success- 

 ful development of "commercial agriculture." Mr. 

 Thompson has made an elaborate statistical study of 

 the agricultural conditions prevailing in Denmark, 

 and his facts and fignjres are well worthy of careful 

 study on the part of economists- Most authorities 

 agree that the prosperity of Denmark is attributable 

 to three causes — the system of land tenure, education, 

 and cooperation. Thrift, the art of wisely saving 

 and wisely spending, is a national characteristic of 

 the Danes, and this, combined with the admirable 

 organisation of their export trade in dairy produce, 

 has enabled them to attain to a greater relative 

 degree of agricultural prosperity than perhaps any 

 other country. Whilst there may be much to admire 

 and copy in the methods of agricultural organisation 

 pursued in Denmark, it should be remembered that 

 this little country is almost entirely dependent upon 

 its exports to the free and immense markets of Great 

 Britain, and that its system of wholesale grading 

 for despatch to one country could not be applied, 

 without modifications, to Great Britain, which has 

 little or no export trade in dairy produce, and whose 

 local home markets are scattered and unlinked with 

 anv central administration. E. H. G. 



