1750-1825 Agricultural Revolution

The term ‘revolution’ is surely used too freely. There are political revolutions, where the power structure is changed suddenly and comprehensively, and economic revolutions, with similarly major changes in that sphere. We see any number of social revolutions, and the term is extended to culture, notably in 1960s China, or even to fashion. We often refer back to the industrial revolution, and perhaps ahead to its future post-industrial version. But maybe less to a more gradual historical phase every bit as important - the agricultural revolution.

Tull seed drill, 1762

A problem to start with. People have disagreed about what’s involved, and when it happened. There’s academic argument about the timing and nature of agricultural revolution(s). Some say there were several - maybe four or five periods - that legitimately fit into a pattern of accelerated change. But this muddies the waters, perhaps making the subject too amorphous to tackle sensibly. Modern studies see it as a three stage, overlapping process. The period chosen here, from 1750, is sometimes called the ‘second agricultural revolution’, as demand for food rose rapidly, yet was generally met through big changes in technique and method.

Key characters?

Even if we agree on a period, there are some enduring myths. For 100 years or more, the British agricultural revolution was seen to be based on three key changes: selective livestock breeding, removal of common land property rights (enclosures), and new systems of cropping with clover. Leading the charge was a group of individuals – Jethro Tull, ‘Turnip’ Townshend, Arthur Young, Coke of Holkham, Bakewell and the Collings. Historians happily made them household names. 

2nd Viscount Townshend

But is it right to personalise the changes like this? Did these men, as we used to believe, triumph over peasants with stick in the mud ideas? Did they transform English agriculture from a backward subsistence economy to a thriving capitalist system fit to feed the exploding population of millions in the new urban areas? Well, there’s now general acceptance that the role of these 'giants of the agricultural revolution' has been, to say the least, exaggerated.

1st Earl of Leicester - Coke of Holkham

Townshend was only a boy when turnips were first grown on his estate. He couldn’t have brought them over from Hanover. Jethro Tull didn’t invent the seed drill, which in any case was not used widely until the 1830s. Coke of Holkham and Arthur Young, great publicists (and self-publicists), were later regarded as charlatans. Bakewell did breed fine sheep but his Longhorn cattle failed. 

Shorthorn heifer, a breed pioneered by Charles Colling 

Says historian Mark Overton “Only the Collings brothers, who developed the shorthorn cattle breed, can escape criticism. Despite this evidence, the myths associated with these individuals have proved extremely difficult to dislodge from literature not directed at a specialist historical audience”.

Feeding a growing population

The UK population grew very fast from 8m in 1750 to 11 million in 1801 and 14m in 1825. These people all needed feeding. So what were the main factors behind the high intensity agriculture from 1750? Adopting turnips, swedes and clover in crop rotation was key to making more use of arable land (such systems were in use in Flanders as early as the 16th century). It helped suppress weeds so farmers didn’t need to leave fields fallow for a season. It also put nitrogen back into the soil. The result in simple terms was more food from each field.

One factor often neglected is basic land reclamation. More upland pasture was converted to arable land, and forests cleared for pasture or planting. A major source of reclaimed land was marsh and Fenland draining and conversion. Here there was help from Flanders and the Netherlands where, due to high population density, farmers had long had to maximise every bit of usable land. It’s estimated that British arable land availability in the period grew by 20%-30% via this process of conversion and recovery. 

Enclosures and social change

The enclosure of land was another key development. By consolidating various plots into more efficiently farmed fields, better use was made of resources. From the 17^th century enclosure could be authorised by Act of Parliament, which became the norm. Landowners and bigger tenant farmers were boosted. Small tenants and farm workers were left landless. Socially polarising, this caused huge dissent and widespread distress. The process was nearly over by the end of the 18th century. Of course it created a base for much more efficient farming, but it left an underclass and a load of lasting social problems. It's worth noting that even today only a tiny proportion of the population owns Britain's land. 

Bridgwater Canal 

There were other influences at work, too. Improved transport with canals and turnpikes saw producers aiming at bigger markets, further from their base. A factor perhaps not stressed enough, it helped the shift from low to higher volume agriculture.

So more land for farming, and better use made of it. The mix of crops changed. As for selective breeding there’s no doubt some breeds of sheep almost doubled in size. And there were improvements in the size, quality and suitability of other sorts of livestock. But the total effect is hard to measure. There’s a great risk of generalising from the particular, and opinions differ as to the scale and timing of this effect.

Rise in grain output

There's perhaps more reason to be confident about grain production. The period from 1750 to 1800 saw large rises on the previous 50 years. Net crop yields per acre improved: oats (by 70%), barley (45%), wheat (25%) and peas/beans (40%). They’re fairly crude estimates but highlight the scale of these gains. 

Wheat, spelt, oat and barley

More detailed analysis is not possible - official analytical data on the sector was unavailable until the 1860s. Still, we know this rise was organic and sustainable. By 1825 with a rough balance achieved, chemical fertilisers and other external inputs weakened overall sustainability. Overton is clear. “An essentially organic agriculture was gradually replaced by a farming system that depended on energy intensive inputs”.

Scottish changes

In Scotland the process was different. Specialists in the subject tended to see it as long term change, ignoring the boom from 1750-1800. Glasgow and Edinburgh grew fast, boosting a move to single land tenancies and production for the market. It was structural - more productivity, based on longer rural leases, new tools and crops. A more effective use of land, and better organisation of resources. Farmers rose to the challenge, avoiding a Lowland equivalent of the Highland clearances.

Did this revolutionary improvement in agriculture and accompanying gains in productivity force people off the land to seek work in newly industrialising urban areas? Or the other way round, with agriculture learning to cope with less labour? A chicken and egg question still being debated. But it allowed the country’s population to achieve sustained growth. Britain, in truth, was never really a peasant society. But the changes in this period accelerated Britain’s early move to capitalist farming, and thus inexorably to its lead in the global industrial revolution.