Cautionary notes on linking the National Farm Survey with other records for investigating the agrarian history of Second World War Britain (original) (raw)
Related papers
Applied Geography, 2010
This paper assesses the suitability of data from the 1930s First Land Utilisation Survey maps to be used as a baseline against which to consider agricultural land use change over time in a small area of East Sussex, England. The working field sheets are compared with the corrected and published 1:63,360 maps for the same area and differences of around 15 per cent of the total area are identified. The categories of Heath and Rough Grazing, and Meadow and Grassland seem to have caused particular difficulties for the original surveyors, as it is these which have most often been reclassified between the field sheets and one inch maps. Comparison of the Heath and Rough Grazing figures with data from the agricultural census suggests that the field sheets may in fact be the more correct representation of land use at the time, and this throws into question the use of the 1:63,360 maps as the definitive version of the survey.
The farming landscapes of England and Wales: A changing scene
Landscape Planning, 1977
The paper discusses the nature of the growing concern about landscape change, and notes the different values placed on the landscape by different groups in our society. The quantitative information on landscape change is examined and the arguments for a multiple land use approach put forward. The principle of the continuing responsibility of farmers and landowners is accepted and alternative methods of advising farmers on landscape conservation matters are discussed. The paper concludes with the case for the use of practical demonstrations as a useful method of landscape conservation. A further paper on the findings of the newly established demonstration farms experiment will follow in two years .
‘Fighting from the fields’: developing the British ‘National Farm’ in the Second World War
Journal of Historical Geography, 2009
The Second World War had a profound impact on British Agriculture, with state intervention at an unprecedented level cementing the idea of a 'National Farm' in both the popular and the governmental psyche. Critical attention has recently begun to refocus on this period, adding to the somewhat celebratory meta-narratives written in the official histories. Drawing from the practice of micro-historical research and recent work in geography that seeks to understand the production of the landscape 'from within', this paper explores how 'small stories' can afford an appreciation of the 'complications of everyday existence' and bring greater depth, nuance and understanding to these 'larger' historical events and their influence on the British countryside. Utilising oral histories from farms in Devon (UK), the paper explores the micro-geographies which shaped as well as destabilised the national farm message as it was translated into the local context.
Processes of countryside change in lowland England
Journal of Rural Studies, 1986
After a period in which academic interest has been confined to documenting the pattern of countryside change, interest is beginning to focus on understanding the decision-making processes which underlie it. This comes at a time of potentially rapid policy change for European agriculture and rural land use, when it is essential that the behaviour of farmers as change agents and policy operatives is fully understood. However, a lack of empirical work means that the process of change 'from below' is still under-researched. This paper reports on a farm survey conducted in lowland England which examines farmers' investment decisions in land improvement and landscape maintenance. Countryside change is found to be both 'determined' by policy, institutional and family influences and 'intentioned' by the farmer acting as a problem-solving individual. The survey discriminates different investment styles which can usefully express this interactive relationship.
Output and Technical Change in Twentieth-Century British Agriculture
2000
Previous estimates of British agricultural output in the twentieth century have covered the period before the Second World War, or after it, but not both. This paper reconciles the differences between previous estimates and goes on to calculate changes in the volume of output between 1867 and 1985. As a result, it is suggested that output grew more rapidly between 1945 and 1965 than during any period before or since. Some of the reasons for this rapid growth are then examined, and it is suggested that the rapid adoption of pre-existing technology was of greater significance than the technical innovations of the period. Many of the histories of British agriculture in the twentieth century imply, by their starting or finishing dates, that there was a discontinuity at the beginning or end of the Second World War. Thus Miss Whetham's volume in The Agrarian Histoly of England and Wales ends in 1939, Dr Perren's study of Agriculture in Depression in 194o, and Dr Brown's account in 1947.' The latter two also accept, as does Dr Thirsk-' that the years between 19oo and 1939 represent a continuation of the period beginning in the 187os, when high levels of imports produced low levels of domestic prices. This was the age of'dog and stick' (i.e. low input-low output) farming, with increased emphasis on milk production, except for a brief period during and shortly after the First World War. Holderness goes so far as to assert that 'Farming in 194o was not significantly different in structure and practice from farming in 184o'. 3 In contrast, the period after the Second World War is perceived as one in which government support ('subsidy' and 'feather bedding' are alternative terms which have been used) together with extra science and technology produced dramatic increases in output with a little less land, much less labour, and much more capital. In Joan Thirsk's terminology, the period between 1939147 and 1985 is a period of mainstream agriculture. Historians of postwar agriculture have been concerned to explain how and why the output increases and technical changes of these years came about• Thus Seddon concentrates on the technology, Blaxter and Robertson on the science behind it, • I would like to thank Derek Shepherd, Andrew Errington, and two anonymous referees for their comments on previous drafts of this paper, and Barbara Sheaves for her assistance with the preparation of the diagram.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 2012
Mixed CAP-driven landscape impacts projected based on intensity of current land use. Models project deep cuts in livestock, as per recent trends, especially in uplands. Extensification of livestock production will also occur in mixed farming regions. This will affect positively Joint Character Areas of mixed farming conditions. Intensive arable production will persist in some areas with negative landscape impact.