August 
1916 
LAND & WATHK 
ti 
Development of German Agriculture 
By Sir Herbert Matthews 
IN the course of his work as President of the Board 
of Agriculture Lord Selborne became aware that 
so far as Germany was concerned, " the war was 
being fought just as mucli on an agricultural as on 
a military organisation of the nation." He therefore 
asked Professor Middleton, one of the Assistant Secre- 
taries of his Department, to report upon the develop- 
ment of German Agriculture during the last 40 years. 
This report has now been published,* and is one of the 
most important documents issued by the Board in. recent 
years. Its jieculiar value lies in the fact that here is no 
ex parte statement, issued in support of any Party pro- 
gramme, or to bolster up the theories of any political 
creed, but facts and figures are given in the cold and un- 
imaginative print of officialism. 
The criterioh of good farming in this coimtry at the end 
of the eighteenth century was success in food production. 
Early in the nineteenth century von Thaer published his 
first work : " An introduction to the knowledge of English 
Agriculture, containing the latest Practical and Theoretical 
Intelligence with a view to the Improvement of German 
Agriculture." Unlike us Hans is always anxious to im- 
prove his methods, and a hundred years after the publica- 
tion of von Thaer's work we are told that on each 100 
acres of cultivated land the British farmer feeds from 
45 to 50 persons, while on the same area the German 
farmer feeds from 70 to 75. These 100 acres produce : 
British Farmer : German I-^armer ; 
Corn . . . . 15 tons 33 tons 
Potatoes.. .. It ,, 55 
Meat .. .. 4 ., '4J ,, 
Milk .. .. 171 „ 28" „ 
' Sugar . . . — ,, 2I „ 
Concurrenth' with this revolution in her agriculture 
Germany has been expanding her industries of every kind 
at an astounding rate, and has kept up an enormous 
standing army by conscription. Most of our own theorists 
have told us that industrial development must be alter- 
native to agriculture. They have further tried to make 
us believe thaf; compulsory military service meant economic 
loss, and a diminution of productive output. Yet we 
now find that in spite of theorists Germany has become 
great m all three directions, industrially, agriculturally, 
and as a European military power. May not the solution of 
this mystery be that it is because of this triple development 
and not in spite of it that Germany was able to hold 
■ Europe in thrall ? 
German Economic Policy 
The organisation of German agriculture is intimately 
associated with her general economic policy. Mr. 
Middleton does not accept, without qualification, "the oft- 
repeated statement that progress in German agriculture 
and retrogression in British farming may be explained by 
the fiscal policies adopted by the respective countries. 
He says : " That the fiscal policy has affected the con- 
ditions is undoubted, but the precise manner in which 
tariffs have contributed to its prosperity are difficult to 
discover." But further on we are told : " It was not the 
tariff but the policy of which the tariff was an expression 
that vitalised German agriculture, and if the German 
farmer had not been assured 20 years ago that the nation 
was behind him Germany could not now have maintained 
her people for twelve months." 
A brief history of (ierman fiscal policy is given. " Soon 
after the Franco-Prussian \\'a.v foreign competition began 
to affect corn growers, and small protective duties were 
resolved upon." Mr. Middleton might have quoted 
Bismarck here, who, in 1879, said : 
" Low corn prices are an economic evil. The position of 
the farmer depends upon the revenue lie obtains from the 
sale of his produce, and the better his position the more 
prosperous is the nation's economic life as a whole. If 
the time should come when corn could not be profitably 
cultivated— not only agriculture but the Prussian State 
and the German Empire itself would go to ruin." 
•Cd. 8305. By T. H. Middleton. d.B. Price 4d. 
Six years later again Bismarck, when \ rging higher 
duties, remarked : 
" There is a limit below which ttie price ot corn cannot fall 
without the ruin of our entire economic life. That point 
must not be reached, for when it is it will be too late. 
Decay may be deferred by the use of the capital we may 
have laid up, but we create an untenable situation. This 
is the position cf British agriculture to-day ; they have 
been- feeding the nation mainly out of their capital for 
years past, and unless this downward course is promptly 
stopped it means national ruin and anarchy as the result." 
In 1880 the first tax was imposed on wheat, rye, oats 
and barley, and this was increased in 1885 and again in 
1887. Caprivi endeavoured with temporary success to 
reverse this policy, but his apparent success created the 
Agrarian Party, and brought about his resignation in 
1894. The great German Tariff Law was passed in iqo2, 
and between these dates a prolonged controversy, Pro- 
tectionists versus Free-traders, raged, when most of the 
arguments with which we have been made familiar in 
recent years were used by the respective parties. In 
his book. Imperial Germany (1914) von Bulow says : 
" I was persuaded that vigorous agriculture is necessary 
for us 'from the economic, but above all, from the national 
and social points of view. . . . Without great and 
flourishing agriculture by its side industry would soon 
use up the best forces of the nation." Von Bulow had 
no misconceptions as to his country being either industrial 
or agricultural. He knew that they were complementary, 
and he intended if possible to prevent Germany adopting 
the suicidal course that Britain had elected to follow. 
Education 
Germany is more than a generation ahead of us in 
education ; not merely in elementary, but also (perhaps 
especially) in technical training. The result has been that 
the German farmer not only reads, but is ready to profit 
by what he reads, and to adopt any improved methods 
of cultivation brought to his notice. As evidence of this 
we find that the German uses double the quantity of 
artificial manures per 100 acres that the British farmer 
uses, and " the chief factor in developing the use of 
artificial manures in Germany was unquestionably a well 
organised system of technical education." On the other 
hand we use 11. 5 tons per 100 acres of imported feeding 
stuffs against their 8.5 tons. Theoretically, as Mr, 
Middleton says, this ought to compensate for the smaller 
quantity of manure used by us, but owing to the heavy 
losses which occur in farmyard manure through improper 
storage this deficiency is not made up. 
This different procedure is due to a cause, not perhaps 
apparent to all our economists. The German has only 
32 per cent, of his 100 acres imder grass : we have 69 per 
cent. Consequently the German grows a larger proportion 
of his own feeding stuffs, and keeps a larger head of stock 
per 100 acres than we can. This gives him a larger 
quantity of farmyard manure with which to fertilise his 
land, and this in turn helps to produce more luxuriant 
crops. That is why the conversion of arable land to 
grass is a national disaster. 
Education has not only taught the German to increase 
his use of artificials, but also how to purchase them, and 
how to apply them to the land with the least waste, and 
therefore to his greatest advantage. A considerable 
proportion of the money spent on artificials in this country 
is wasted, first because many farmers buy without know- 
ing the value of what they are purchasing, and secondly 
because it is wastefully applied. 
Ownership v. Occupancy 
" Ninety- three per cent of the land of Germany is 
owned by the men who cultivate it ; in England and 
Wales only eleven per cent, of the occupiers are owners." 
That is a startling fact, but one that goes a long way to- 
wards explaining German success. Count von Schwerin- 
Lowitz, President of the German Agricultural Council. 
