Agriculture 1750-1815.

farmers in new methods. He initiated agricultural shows and encouraged his tenant farmers to improve their methods by granting them long leases. The real achievement of all of them was the publicity their innovations attracted.These new ideas spread slowly. Many had originated in Holland and taken root in Norfolk and the eastern counties. There was however a marked difference between the east and west of England. The potential for progress was greater on the eastern sandy soil. In the west the lighter soil was found on higher ground and once it could be fertilised cereals could be grown there more cheaply than on the heavy clays of the lowland areas which required more labour-intensive ploughing. On lower ground the working season was shorter, root-crops did not grow as well, and it was too wet for livestock in winter. During the 18th century there was a marked expansion into formerly barren uplands while the clay lowlands were turned to grass, providing more land for fattening and dairying cattle which would previously have been slaughtered at the beginning of the winter. This in turn meant fresh rather than salted beef. Improved methods of manuring also improved crop yields. New crops such as turnips, root vegetables and legumes like clover, sanfoin, trefoil and lucerne meant that more stock could be kept, producing more dung which improved soil fertility. Soil was dressed with clay-marl, sand, or chalk, depending on the soils natural deficiencies. Near the coast seaweed was used, near textile-centres waste rags, around Sheffield bone and horn waste from making cutlery handles, and from the large cities came the street sweepings and the contents of privies.In 1750 much of the British countryside was farmed by an open field system. This suited a system geared to subsistence farming. Large open fields were divided into strips either owned by freeholders or rented from the local squire by tenants. However, open field farming was wasteful. It often meant long walks between a farmer's different parcels of land and the loss of acreage to paths and tracks among the fields. It encouraged the spread of weeds and plant diseases. Fields were susceptible to damage from unfenced animals which also made selective breeding impossible.This open field system was not found everywhere. Enclosure meant joining the strips of open field to make larger compact pieces of land. Half the country was already enclosed, especially the areas catering for the markets of large cities such as London. Some farmers had bought or exchanged land in order to facilitate enclosure. The extent of this enclosure is difficult to document as opposed to the later Parliamentary enclosures which were the climax of the transformation of British agriculture. There were two great periods of enclosure -the 1760s and '70s and the period of the Napoleonic Wars from 1793-1815. In both cases the timing was due to the opportunities for greater profits due to high cereal prices and the initiative was taken by large landowners. Prior to 1740 most land was enclosed by agreement between the major landowners but where smaller landowners opposed it an Act of Parliament had to be obtained. After 1750 this became the accepted practice. However, obtaining an Act of Enclosure could be a lengthy and expensive procedure.The effects of enclosure were both economic and social. Enclosure facilitated new agricultural methods and led to more land under cultivation. It enabled livestock farming to work in tandem with arable farming and encouraged selective breeding. However, it meant a decline in the number of small landowners and cottagers and many farm labourers left for the industrialising cities. This migration away from the land was compensated for by the increased volume and regularity of employment for those who remained. There was still little labour saving machinery and enclosure meant work putting up fences and hedges, building new farms, and making roads to transport the increased volume of produce. The numbers engaged in agriculture rose from 1.7 million in 1801 to 2.1 million in 1851, but this did not match the increase in agricultural output. This meant that farm labourers were becoming more productive, which coupled with the rise in population, released workers from the land.When assessing the changes in agriculture between 1750 and 1815 it is also important to look at its relationship with industry. In fact there were no direct links - both helped each other. True, the growth in population created a greater demand for agricultural products but at the same time farmers embraced new methods and often helped to finance improved transport systems which allowed them to feed the workers of the ever-expanding industrial cities. Landowners exploited the mineral deposits under their land, or used it for developing urban estates. Money was also moved from country banks to the cities. At the same time some industrialists invested in agriculture, sensing the possibility of high profits.In conclusion it can be seen that in as much as there was an agrarian revolution between 1750 and 1815 it was a slow one, and a continuation of earlier changes. There was a diffusion of new ideas , but it was hindered by the considerable regional differences in agricultural practice. However, the uniquely English system of landholding was well suited to change. Large landowners had the capital to invest in innovation. It was in the interest of the tenant-farmers to change their existing methods and there was a large rural labour force on hand to carry out the changes. The end of the open field system and the enclosure of previously unusable land meant that during this period the acreage of cultivable land increased. Finally, all this meant that agriculture was able to sustain the increased demand for food caused by the growth in population, while itself reaping some of the rewards of The Industrial Revolution. (1233 words.)