Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations - Kootenay Local Agricultural Society
Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations - Kootenay Local Agricultural Society
Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations - Kootenay Local Agricultural Society
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
the introduction <strong>of</strong> clover and other nitrogen-fixing plants into crop rotations<br />
in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Crop yields at the<br />
start <strong>of</strong> the eighteenth century were not all that much greater than medieval<br />
levels, implying that increased agricultural production came largely from<br />
expanding the area cultivated rather than improved agricultural methods.<br />
Wheat yields had risen by just a bushel and a half over medieval yields <strong>of</strong><br />
ten to twelve bushels per acre. Yet by 1810 yields had almost doubled. By<br />
1860 they had reached twenty-five to twenty-eight bushels an acre.<br />
Increasing labor needed to harvest an acre <strong>of</strong> crops implies that crop<br />
yields rose over time. <strong>The</strong> number <strong>of</strong> person days required to harvest an<br />
acre <strong>of</strong> wheat increased from about two around 1600 to two and a half by<br />
the early 1700s, and then to just over three in 1860. Overall crop yields<br />
increased by two and a half times in the six hundred years from 1200 to<br />
1800. So despite increasing yields, the tenfold population increase primarily<br />
reflected expansion <strong>of</strong> the area under cultivation.<br />
During the same period about a quarter <strong>of</strong> England’s cultivated land was<br />
transformed from open, common fields to fenced estates. By the end <strong>of</strong> the<br />
eighteenth century, common fields had almost disappeared from the English<br />
landscape. Loss <strong>of</strong> the common lands meant the difference between<br />
independence and destitution for rural households that had always kept a<br />
cow on the commons. Dispossessed, landless peasants with no work depended<br />
on public relief for food. Seeing the economic effects <strong>of</strong> the transformation<br />
<strong>of</strong> the English countryside, Board <strong>of</strong> Agriculture secretary<br />
Arthur Young came to see land enclosure as a dangerous trend destroying<br />
rural self-sufficiency. But enclosing and privatizing the last vestiges <strong>of</strong> communal<br />
property conveniently pushed a new class <strong>of</strong> landless peasants to<br />
seek jobs just as laborers were needed in Britain’s industrializing cities.<br />
By the early nineteenth century, British farms had developed into a<br />
mixed system <strong>of</strong> fields and pastures. A roughly equal emphasis on cultivation<br />
and animal husbandry provided for constant enrichment <strong>of</strong> the soil<br />
with large quantities <strong>of</strong> manure, and cover crops <strong>of</strong> clover and legumes.<br />
English population growth mirrored increases in agricultural production<br />
from after the Black Death to the Industrial Revolution. Between 1750<br />
and 1850, England’s cereal production and population both doubled. Did<br />
a growing human population drive up demand for agricultural products?<br />
Or did increased agricultural production enable faster population growth?<br />
Regardless <strong>of</strong> how we view the causality, the two rose in tandem.<br />
Nonetheless, as the population grew, the European diet declined. With<br />
almost all <strong>of</strong> the available land in cultivation, Europeans increasingly sur-<br />
let them eat colonies 99