—————— 
eS <r rc rr 
M.— AGRICULTURE. 197 
Tt 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 in extent, it may be 
claimed that in respect of altitude, quality of land, and proportion 
of arable to grass the holdings in these five groups are fairly com- 
parable. ‘Taking the results as they stand, the fact emerges that 
employment and production vary inversely with the size of the hold- 
ing, but that the production per man employed varies directly with 
the size of the holding. Thus, on the one hand, the advocates of 
closer settlement and the intensive 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 amount of employment and the greatest product- 
value in the smaller groups. On the other hand, the advocates of 
more extensive methods of farming 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 only be 
judged hy an examination of the extent to which all the factors of 
production are utilised and balanced under it. Each of the assump- 
tions 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 informa- 
tion 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 
equipment, 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 reduction 
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 conditions in many 
more, make it impossible to determine even within wide limits the 
size of the holding 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 agricul- 
tural economists to collect evidence on this point for the informa- 
tion of all concerned with the administration of land. 
Another matter of the utmost importance to the farmer and to 
