A quarter acre (1 decare) of land will feed one man and his family for a year as the old adage goes. At a time when world food prices are soaring why should this not be as true today as in the past, especially in the UK where we have 18.4 million hectares of agricultural land under cultivation not including household gardens! We have all heard the official reasons biofuels, more demand from the populations in developing countries as they become richer however these reasons seem to miss the point; perhaps we are growing too many of the wrong crops and rearing too many of the wrong animals.

Let us look at how the UK’s 18.4 million hectares (2002 figures, the latest available) is being used:

Crop and Livestock Production (millions tonnes):

Wheat 1.99 ha, Barley 1.01 ha, Other cereals 0.132 ha, Oilseed rape 0.498 ha, Potatoes 0.149 ha, Other arable 0. 631 ha,

Horticulture: 0.175 ha.

Livestock (per hectare):  

Cows 10.6 head

Sheep 35.89 head

Pigs 5.16 head

Poultry 165.3 head

Keep in mind the situation is reflected in many other Western countries.

The UK has an above average area of land given over to agriculture  (67.8%) when compared with the other core, EU member states. 

We can then compare this to the variety of production from a one decare plot.

Now we can look production from a one decare plot which was widespread 100 years ago. Typically the plot has a number of fruit trees and bushes scattered about, for instance plum, apple and pear trees plus raspberry, gooseberry, blackberry, redcurrant and similar as, or in, the border hedge. There was, of course, always the obligatory patch of rhubarb. Root vegetables including potatoes, turnips, carrots and the like with pulses such as peas, runner and broad beans and brassicas such as cabbage and broccoli are the mainstay of the annual crop. Given proper rotation (ie leaving one quarter of the plot fallow every year) continued to provide sufficient produce year on year to feed a family. Space within the plot was also available for a couple of breeding pigs (once fed on swill but no longer allowed because of disease from foods that can be passed on through household waste). A dozen chickens for breeding and to supply eggs and meat were also kept and for milk of course there would have been a couple of goats. With co-operation from other landholders it would also be possible to keep a cow or two.

So there we have it, a small plot of land nutritiously feeding four to six persons for a full twelve months, so where are we going wrong in that we are deemed to be deficient in food resource and need to import so many basic food varieties.

In that 18.4 million hectares of available agricultural land there are three decares of land for every man, woman and child in the UK but they only need one for an average of five persons. Some may say this is subsistence agriculture which indeed it is at the family level however if this land were aggregated into land areas set aside for the required volume of these crops to feed 60 million people then surely this would be better land use and more worthwhile for the economy as a whole, reducing food imports and therefore food miles to a minimum.

Of the 18.4 million hectares only one third of this would need to be allocated to the production of crops to satisfy the domestic market, indeed, even producing a possible surplus. The rest could still continue to be used for cereals, meat and dairy production thereby continuing to keep alive the export and food processing aspect of agriculture. This raises the question as to whether government should introduce a farming and land allocation plan. As an example of better more social land use, although strongly criticised because of EU subsidies, France plus other continental European countries have kept their smaller farms which makes them more responsive to changing market conditions and they can therefore react more quickly, with the additional benefit that the small farmers’ profits also increase which could lead to a rise in rural employment. France and the others are not immune from world price fluctuations but their food price increases have been lower than most as the overwhelming proportion of basic items for the domestic market are supplied by their smaller farmers.

The French approach to CAP support for smaller farmers rather than agri-business seems to be justified as price increases there on basic foods have only been around 5% whereas in the UK and elsewhere the increase has been many times that.

As we have seen only 6 million hectares of land is required to satisfy production of a variety of basic foods and individual farmers may find that the increased prices and therefore profit margins make a change viable. If this does not happen through market forces then perhaps it is time for government to start considering imposing minimum land areas for the planting of basic crops to compel farmers to adjust to changed circumstances.

Indeed consumers as well need to change their perceptions and expectations but the lead must come from somewhere, voluntarily if led by the farming industry, compulsion if led by the government.