THE LIMITS OF PASTURE.
IN spite of glib assertions which we frequently hear to the effect that arable farming does not pay, and that if landlords and tenants knew their own interest they would co-operate in the extensive conversion of tillage into pasture, we find that the progress in this direction in Great Britain during recent years has been very slow. It is true that during the decade ending with 1888, the latest year for which the figures have been published, there was an increase of 1,834,901 acres of permanent pasture in Great Britain ; but 829,867 acres of this quantity represent the increase in the total of land under cultivation, leaving only a, little over a million acres as the area of arable land con- verted into permanent pasture in ten years. Nearly two- thirds of this conversion, moreover, took place during the first half of the decade, so that the change has been but trifling during the five years ending with 1888, averaging less than 80,000 acres per annum. Seeing that the change involves a diminished demand for labour, and a reduced gross return from the land, we are not able to join in the wish of those persons who would like to see it become more rapid. For it must not be supposed that a diminished growth of corn necessarily implies an increased production of meat and milk. On the contrary, it is well known by experienced agriculturists that more meat is pro- duced on arable land than on pasture, taking equal areas. If confirmation of this statement be needed, it is sufficient to state that, during the decade, sheep in Great Britain became fewer by over three millions, and pigs by about eighty thousand ; while the increase in cattle was not much more than one-third of a million. As for agricultural and breeding horses, an increase of less than ten thousand is scarcely worth mentioning in this connection. These facts, it may readily be admitted, are no reply to the argu- ments of the advocates of increased permanent pasture, because their sole contention is that, by reducing expendi- ture, the farmer makes a small return from grass land pay better than a much larger one from land under tillage crops. That this is true in many cases we have no doubt, and where it is true, the farmer cannot be expected to refrain from converting a losing business into a paying one, out of regard for the welfare of his labourers. But if it be true, as is commonly represented, two questions at once arise. First, Why is it that the conversion of arable land into pasture is so very slow ? And secondly, How is it that in Scotland, where rents and wages are higher than they are in England, the area of permanent pasture, not much over a million acres altogether, is actually smaller than it was in 1884 ?
A single answer is a partial one to both questions. It is this,—that, as a rule, it pays a tenant better to sow land down with strong-growing grasses and clovers for four or five years, than to lay it down permanently. In the first place, the cost of a temporary pasture is much less than that of a permanent one properly laid. down ; and in the second place, the produce of the former is much greater than that of the latter, at any rate in its first few years. One may drive for miles through the dairy districts of the West of Scotland without seeing a piece of permanent pasture, and by far the greater portion of the acreage returned under that heading for other parts of Scotland is poor hill-land, quite unfit for cropping. The rich old pasture of some of the grazing districts of England and Ireland, and of a small portion of Scotland, is extremely valuable ; but many years of growth, even on suitable soil, and in a moist climate, are required to bring grass land up to such perfection. It may be admitted that there is less truth than there was in the old adage, which declares that- " To break a pasture will make a. man ; To make a pasture will break a man."
For one reason, breaking a good old pasture in these times of low prices for corn would be an act of folly, if the fanner intended to stay for many years on his holding; and, for another, the cost of grass seeds is less than it was formerly, while the knowledge of the character of the grasses suitable for various soils is greater. It may pay a landlord to make permanent pasture, even on land not specially suited to it ; but the tenants' case, with an un- certain tenure, and without any claim to compensation as a rule, is quite different. Landlords generally have no capital to spare for doing the work, and they are not commonly willing to give their consent to its being done by their tenants, thus rendering themselves liable to pay compensation under the Agricultural Holdings Act when the tenants leave their holdings. Should a tenant, in spite of his disadvantages, run the risk of making permanent pasture, he cannot, after some years, plough it up again without being liable for damages ;
and yet if he lets it remain, he may have his rent put up in consequence of the improvement which he has made Of course, this is unjust in the extreme ; but it is the law of the land nevertheless, and it operates as a hindrance to the extension of permanent pasture. On the other hand, the farmer, by laying down temporary pasture, can economise his expenses to almost as great an extent as if he converted an equal area of arable land into grass for a permanency, while there are other advantages of no mean importance. By sowing rye-grass, cock's-foot, the fescues, and the leguminous plants best suited to his soil, he obtains bulky crops for hay or for grazing at once ; the stock fed on such crops for four years or more enrich the soil ; and the land has a rest from the growth of corn crops. Consequently, after getting a• fair or good return from his " seeds " for a few years, he has his land in excellent condition for a. course of corn and root crops, without the necessity of a heavy expenditure in manure. It is not surprising, then, that this system has lately been growing rapidly in favour, as preferable, for a, tenant at any rate, to the extension of permanent pasture. In the Agricultural Returns, " grasses under rotation " are classed with clovers ; but there is no doubt that the considerable increase shown under the combined. heading is due to the extension of temporary grass land.
There are other limitations to the extension of per- manent pasture yet to be mentioned. In some of the principal arable districts, and particularly in the driest parts of the Eastern counties, the land' does not " take to grass " very kindly. It is true that the improved know- ledge of the varieties of grasses best suited to districts in which the soil is stiff or sandy, and the rainfall small, has, to some extent, obviated this difficulty; but, although a pasture may be established. on the Essex clays, or the Nor- folk sandy soils, the produce is never great, and it is quite insignificant in comparison with the heavy crops of clover, vetches, or temporary grasses, which can be produced on land of the former class, or with the results of turnip husbandry in the latter. If we turn to the Midlands, or other districts near the manufacturing centres, where pasture as a rule flourishes, we find that corn-growing still pays fairly in many instances, on account of the satisfactory returns obtained from the sale of the straw. This limitation to the extension of pasture is likely to be continuous, in spite of the counteracting influence of the growing use of peat-moss litter as a substitute for straw. The latter commodity must always be in considerable demand in the manufacturing districts for packing at least, and its price is often nearly as high as that of hay. Old-fashioned restrictions against the sale of straw, quite out of place in farm agreements now that artificial manures and feeding- stuffs are abundant and cheap, are fast dying out. Their continuance anywhere is a folly, as the manurial value of straw is a trifle in comparison with its sale value, and it is difficult to grow corn at current prices without loss, unless some of the straw is disposed of. Mr. Primrose M'Connell, a lecturer on Agricultural Science at Oxford University, and a member of one of the little colonies of Scotch farmers settled in Essex, has recently published an account, showing how he can produce wheat with profit at 30s. a quarter. He does it by a conjunction of the system of growing temporary pasture, and thus keeping down expenses, and of the plan of selling straw. Without the latter means of profit, his account would show a balance on the wrong side, as far as the wheat crop is concerned. We might proceed to enlarge upon other limitations to the increase of permanent pasture, such as the extending cultivation of fruit and market-garden pro- duce ; but enough has been said to show the improbability of the land of Great Britain going to any much greater extent than at present out of arable cultivation, even with the price of corn as miserably low as it is now. It is to be borne in mind that the expenses of farming are very much less than they were even ten years ago, rent and most other branches of expenditure having been greatly reduced•; and if any considerable advance in the value of corn should result from the increase of population and of mixed farming in America and other great corn-growing countries, helped perhaps by a rise in rail and ocean freights, which have been almost ruinously low of late, we shall expect to see the acreage of permanent pasture in this country reduced. Those who are always crying for• pasture forget that farmers know their own business, and that if pasture were so profitable, grass would spread fast over the land,.
Previous page
