Farmer's Glory

by A G Street

  The various advocates of wheat-growing in this country try to evade the real issue of its economic unsoundness by saying that it is a bulwark of national defence. Well, even if one agrees with this statement, the unpleasant fact remains that the nation seems very reluctant to pay for this national bulwark, and very certainly farmers cannot pay for it any longer.

  But there is another view. Wheat-growing to-day is the reverse of a bulwark. The present price for wheat does not provide a sufficient return to the farmer, to enable him to pay his way or to keep his land in good heart. In order to meet the deficit in fanning accounts, many farmers increase the annual acreage of their corn crops, thereby impoverishing their land. Apart from the low prices, they find that they are getting diminishing yields year after year, and the national bulwark (?) is therefore getting weaker and weaker. Under intensive stock farming the fertility of England’s soil would be enhanced greatly, and should the time ever arise when grain-growing would be a national bulwark, we should have a strong one on which to depend. The danger that as this fertile grassland could not produce grain in less than ten months, the nation might be short of food in war time if imported supplies were stopped, could be obviated by a national storage of a six months’ supply, since wheat will keep.

  Doubtless many people will disagree with the idea that Britain should abandon wheat-growing and become primarily a grass farming country. But that his change is taking place all over our land cannot be denied, neither can it be stopped. The politicians, the press, and and the farmers, who are endeavouring to stop it, will soon discover that they are but modern Canutes. The tide of economic forces cannot be stayed. Even if grain-growing be bolstered up by political action it can only last a very short time, because it is economically unsound, unsuited to our climatic conditions, and also to the consumer’s taste as compared with meat and milk fanning.

  The foregoing has been written in the assumption that any proposed Government assistance to agriculture is almost certain to be in connection with wheat-growing and as such, bound to fail. Also, as most townsfolk deprecate the idea of any assistance from the National Exchequer being given to farmers, they are almost certain to vote against it. But if there is any national desire that our farming industry be put upon a prosperous basis, surely some political party should, at least, investigate the problem with the idea of helping the farmers to make this drastic change in their methods, which is happening all over the country.

  That it is happening there can be no doubt. More and more land is being sown down to pasture each succeeding year. Wheat-growing has always been considered as the sheet anchor of British farming, and most of our farms, farming agreements, and customs have been planned for that purpose. The change-over to intensive stock farming as the principal feature, while it is taking place, is doing so in a very painful manner to those most concerned.

  Many an arable farmer, having arrived at the point in his farming career where he must change over to grass or quit, is unable to do so for financial reasons. A few hundred pounds worth of arable implements enable him to plant and reap his corn, thus getting deeper and deeper into the mire each year. To grass, fence, and water his arable land will take all his money. What is the good of doing this if he is unable to find the capital to stock his grassed farm? Those who have a sufficiency of capital are making, or have already made, this change in their farming methods. The others, who have not the wherewithal, continue to grow grain in the vain hope that something miraculous may happen.

  Is it possible for government aid to make this change-over in farming methods less painful, or must many good arable farmers go down and out, leaving their farms to newcomers who have the capital to accomplish this alteration?

  One of the chief arguments in favour of a guaranteed price for wheat is that it would cause a lot of land which has been grassed down in recent years to be brought into cultivation once more. But would it? The usual figure quoted is a minimum of about fifty shillings per quarter for wheat. That price might prevent any more arable land being sown down, but very little grassland would be broken up in consequence. It costs a lot of money to grass, fence, and water arable land. Wheat at fifty shillings would not tempt many farmers who have sunk a considerable amount of capital in changing over their farms from arable to grass, to scrap this expensive improvement. I have grassed the whole of my farm, and I might be tempted to change my farming system for wheat-growing at seventy-five shillings per quarter. That is the minimum at which I should consider even the purchase of arable implements, and the consequent scrapping of my new pastures and fences. And that, as Euclid says, is absurd, while to make this change, relying on the stability of any political action, would be ridiculous.

  Ours is a thickly populated country. The motor car makes it possible for the land around each town to be farmed by producer retailers of those farming products which the town’s population desire. Possibly there are certain tracts of flat good arable land in our country where grain might still be grown profitably by mechanical cultivation, being alternated with sugar beet in districts suitable for the growing of this crop, and in which sugar factories are situated. Farther away from towns, stock-raising, milk-production for the London market, and the production of grass-fed beef and mutton could be carried on under almost colonial conditions. Any development of the Empire Free Trade idea would doubtless give us a sufficiency of grain for our needs, but in a great measure we are to-day importing a considerable quantity of meat and dairy produce from countries outside the Empire.

  Besides, this suggested meat and milk farming, if handled nationally, need not mean a reduction of labour to any great extent. Each farm, though chiefly grass, would grow a certain amount of grain for the production of feed litter, and thatch for the farm needs. This grain would not be grown for sale, but only when the economic needs of the particular farm made it a paying proposition. Generally speaking, this type of farming would require a lot of intelligent and highly paid labour.

  It is difficult for farmers to view this question dispassionately—I find it so myself. In spite of all my efforts and intentions to the contrary the idea that the farmer personally should receive some form of government aid, has crept into this last chapter. I consider that the farmers of our country were treated unfairly some years ago by the repeal of that portion of the Corn Production Act which gave them some stability of prices, while the other part relating to their production costs remained unchanged, and farmers generally hold this opinion.

  But can anything in this life be termed fair? Nature, health, sickness, are these fair? While injustice can be, and often is, created by Act of Parliament, I do not think it either possible or practicable to make things fair by the same means. Any attempt to do so usually creates another and often worse injustice. Most of the difficulties and handicaps under which farming has to be carried on to-day, are the direct result of attempts to make things fair for the consumer or labourer. In consequence, the farmer considers that he should be so treated to redress the balance, and pleads for some political action in his favour.

  In those last three words lie his chief mistake. While the nation does consider the interests of the labourer and consumer, and may possibly consider that the farming industry is worthy of concern in its present condition, the personal plight of the individual farmer does not worry it at all. That many farmers will fail and go under is to the nation of no consequence. That a large national industry is going downhill is another matter. The safeguarding duties in other trades were not imposed to help the employers but to aid the particular industry, solely on the grounds that the nation could not afford to see it fail. It may be said that this attitude is unfair, and possibly unwise, but it cannot be said that it is untrue.

  That is the position which farmers must face. They will get no financial aid from any government for themselves, neither will they obtain any for the farming industry unless that industry produces those things which the population of our country desires.

  In any case, if any lasting
good to our country is to come from any political intervention in the present agricultural situation, it must be on these lines, and what is perhaps much more important, there must be considerable more honesty on both sides when these problems are discussed. The farmer must realize that the town consumer, in normal times, is never again going to pay a sufficiently high price for farming products to enable the producer to live in the style of 1906–1921. The politician must admit that still higher wages and still shorter hours for the agricultural worker can never go hand in hand for long with a cheap breakfast table for the town dweller. There can be no brief for political action to establish wheat-growing, but the city voter may consider that home-produced meat and dairy produce are worth having on the grounds that they are produced in conformity with known standards of cleanliness and quality.

  Given such honesty on both sides there is surely the possibility of a prosperous British agriculture such as I have outlined.

  That there is one man in the farmer’s councils who possesses such honesty, I know. He is blessed with sufficient integrity, breadth of vision, and capacity, and, above all, with backbone enough to pursue his way in spite of any taunts and insults from those whom he represents. Whether there is a politician in our land to-day who is so equipped, I can only wonder.

  I do not expect many people to agree with the arguments I have advanced in this concluding chapter, but I would suggest that those who study it fairly will find a grain or two of wheat amongst the chaff. Should the perusal of it cause anyone to investigate the farming problem from this angle, the writing of this last chapter will be amply justified.

  July 1931.

  Since the writing of the preceding chapter, a great change has come over the political situation, and it looks as if some genuine attempt by parliament to help our agricultural industry is probable in the near future.

  Must this be solely on a wheat basis as before? Will they make another attempt to put the clock back?

  English farming is definitely turning away from grain-growing. Why should not this parliament give it a helping hand in that direction, which has been proved by the last seven years of depression to be the right one?

  November 1931

  About the Author

  A. G. Street was born Arthur G. Street in 1892 and grew up on a farm near Wilton, Wiltshire. He was a broadcaster and writer and wrote 25 books with farming life at their centre. Perhaps his most famous book, Farmer’s Glory describes his time in Canada before he returned to Wiltshire. Another book, Strawberry Roan, was turned into a film. He died in 1966.

  Copyright

  This ebook edition first published in 2011

  by Faber and Faber Ltd

  Bloomsbury House

  74–77 Great Russell Street

  London WC1B 3DA

  All rights reserved

  © A. G. Street, 1932, 1959

  The right of A. G. Street to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with Section 77 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

  This ebook is copyright material and must not be copied, reproduced, transferred, distributed, leased, licensed or publicly performed or used in any way except as specifically permitted in writing by the publishers, as allowed under the terms and conditions under which it was purchased or as strictly permitted by applicable copyright law. Any unauthorised distribution or use of this text may be a direct infringement of the author’s and publisher’s rights, and those responsible may be liable in law accordingly

  ISBN 978–0–571–28120–6