LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
[Correspondents are requested to keep their letters as brief as is reasonably possible. The most suitable length is that of one of our "News of the Week" paragraphs. Signed letters are given a preference over those bearing a pseudonym, and the latter must be accompanied by the name and address of the author, which will be treated as confidential.—Ed. THE SPECTATOR.] SIR,—In your issue of April 23rd, Mr. Colin Clark made out a case against the continuance of British agriculture, on the grounds that imports of feeding-stuffs for the farmer's animals exceed in weight the farmer's output of finished articles of food ; that from the point a view of saving shipping tonnage, we ought to import all our food in the finished state. That, at least, was his opening argument : later he qualified it by permitting the British farmer to produce potatoes, vegetables, "and possibly a certain amount of fresh milk." At all events, according to Mr. Clark, the British livestock industry ought to go.
Mr. Clark has demonstrated once again that a man can • make figures prove anything, if he is careful to select the set of figures which suits his purpose. He has selected shipping tonnage. I accept his figures, but how does he like his shipping argument when it is applied to another industry ? Obviously, raw cotton is much bulkier, and employs much more shipping tonnage in transit, than finished cotton goods. We ought therefore to shut down our Lancashire cotton industry, and import the finished article from Japan. If Mr. Clark's argu- ment from that particular set of figures is valid for one industry, it is valid for another ; but how silly it looks !
And how silly it is. One has only to stop thinking in terms of weight, and think in terms of value instead, to perceive that the importation of all our requirements in the finished state is economically impossible. It is an economic certainty that the value of a finished product is greater than the value of the raw materials that go to make it. By finishing and selling certain articles of food (and cotton goods too) at home, we are keeping the national wealth at home. And conversely, if we are to import everything ready-made—in its most expensive form—how are we to pay for it ? We have surely learnt by now that the foreign market for our heavy manufactures is a diminishing and not an expanding one ; foreign countries tend more and more to make things for themselves. So we could not expect to pay an enor- mously increased food bill in the old way.
There is another economic argument to be used against Mr. Clark, before I come to human arguments. The agri- cultural economist knows what is Meant by "residual fertility." The fattening of livestock in this country means the production not only of meat but also of manure ; so part of those bulky imported feeding-stuffs to which Mr. Clark objects goes into our own soil, and makes, incidentally, a far more lasting fertiliser than anything we can import from Chile. The more muck we have in our stockyards, the less shipping tonnage we shall use to bring " artificials " from overseas. - And what of the human aspect of Mr. Clark's case ? The farmer may be allowed to produce potatoes, vegetables "and possibly a little fresh milk " ; but agriculture cannot support itself on those. Already we grow enough potatoes and vegetables to saturate the market. What is to happen to all those other acres—those which support today the utterly superfluous livestock and grow the utterly superfluous corn ? Such a saving of tonnage, to import ready-made meat, flour, and I suppose sugar, and, of course, tinned milk ! And the land which now produces these things in England will go down to weeds, and the men will go down to the Labour Exchange to draw their dole.
Mr. Clark, so selective in his figures, seems to reject the statistics of longevity which go to show that land work makes healthy people ; nor has he learned, apparently, that fresh milk contains vitamins. A fully-working agriculture is of great value to national health. It is, too, a safeguard against exploitation by the foreigner in the n-cter of food prices. If we were to import all our staple foods in the finished state what an opportunity for those who do not love us too well! These are peace-time thoughts : so also is the thought that when our rearmament programme is finished (still in
peace, we hope) those who have been engaged in making weapons of war will have to be diverted to the production of things saleable in peace-time. A fully-working agricultural industry is a very large home market for home manufactures. A few men dotted here and there in the waste land, producing potatoes, vegetables and a little fresh milk, are not.
Now for war. No mere figures can prove to us that in the event of war it is a bad thing to have a large head of livestock in the country, ready to be turned into meat at need. And it goes without saying that there would also be large reserves of feeding-stuffs in the country, for no farmer feeds away his stuff until his store is empty before ordering a fresh supply.
Then if feeding-stuffs later ran short, numbers of cattle could be slaughtered for food and storage ; while farmers themselves could grow on their own land enough fodder to maintain animals for breeding and milk. We have learned to abhor waste in war-time ; the maintenance Of a certain head of stock ensures the using up of grass, fodder, and even thc residue of human food, and the turning of these things into valuable meat and milk. Mr. Clark's argument, 'applied to war, is that a shipping tonnage reduced because it carries finished foods instead of bulky raw materials is easier to protect ; but even a reduced tonnage cannot be entirely safe from attack. It is certain (we learnt it in the last War) that great demands are made upon the internal resources of any country in war-time. It was so in the Napoleonic wars. But if the land has lost its fertility through lack of animal manure, if a great proportion of it has gone to waste because its former products have not been required, then it can make no response however urgent the demand. A fallow full of weeds cannot be turned into a cornfield in one season or even in two. Farmers know that the fertility argument is the strongest of all to use against Mr. Clark's fallacious exploitation of a selection of figures. To buy ready-finished meat from abroad is to put money into our stomachs ; to buy feeding-stuffs and fatten stock at home is to store money in the land. And what,
anyway, is an adverse tonnage-balance of 12,000 tons, in a turnover of over 9,800,000 tons ? If and when it becomes worth the British farmer's while to do so, he can easily redress
the balance by growing that amount of feeding-stuffs at home.—
I am, Sir, yours faithfully, DOREEN WALLACE. Wortham Manor, Diss, Norfolk.
Previous page
