Talk:British Agricultural Revolution
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the British Agricultural Revolution article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
Comparison with China
editA disclaimer was added to the lede regarding the much higher crop yields in China. When the more important crop rotation and enclosure sections are updated I will add a short section comparing British agriculture with the Chinese system.Phmoreno (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I've tried to improve this. I don't know where that 10-20 claim come from - not from Needham, I'm sure. China's rice yield was of course far higher than that of any European cereal, but rice was only about half of China's grain (and under 1% of Europe's, and of course none of England's, making a direct comparison of that one crop meaningless as an indicator of wider productivity). Chinese grain yields overall were rather above the 19th-century British level, non-rice yields about midway between Britain and the European average after allowance for double-cropping. China's overall output per unit of agricultural area was a good deal higher, though it's difficult to quantify: I've tried to clarify this in the section.
The comparison with Continental Europe is actually far more informative, not least for what it tells us about subsequent agricultural development on the Continent. And the contraction of British arable farming in the face of overseas imports is an important part of the story. Chiffrephile (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Where in China are you attempting to talk about? Presumably not the Gobi Desert or the Tibetan Plateau. Some of Southern China is tropical and so can not be compared with an island in the North Atlantic which has a much shorter growing season. What point are you trying to make and why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.83.42 (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Jethro Tull
editI've flagged as citation needed the claim that his seed drill had little impact... that's the very opposite of what my high school texts said, but that's a while ago. History doesn't change but our understanding of it does. Sources? Andrewa (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- Not everything you were taught in school was factually correct, or more likely, it was poorly understood by the people who wrote the textbooks. I am unfamiliar with the working mechanism of Tull's seed drill, but the technology to manufacture affordable and reliable machinery of all types required machine tools and machining techniques and such things as metal stamping and die forging that were developed over the mid to late 19th century. See: American system of manufacturing[1]Phmoreno (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
- ^ Hounshell, David A. (1984), From the American System to Mass Production, 1800–1932: The Development of Manufacturing Technology in the United States, Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press, ISBN 978-0-8018-2975-8, LCCN 83016269, OCLC 1104810110
- Very true. That's one reason I flagged it rather than trying to correct it (the other being that I don't have a source to cite either).
- We tend to grossly underestimate the significance of our industrial inventory. Steelworks are made of steel. Sulphuric acid is used to make sulphuric acid. Lathes are used to build lathes, and grinders to build grinders, and computers to design computers. Andrewa (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- Please all note that the post was to which I was replying was revised after I had replied. Andrewa (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Exosomatic energy
editNo mention of increased exosomatic energy inputs via the use of steam engines with wood and then mass quantities of coal in Britain? The biggest contributing factor in the exponential rise in human population since 1800 is the access to immense stores of dense fossil Carbon energy and Carbon feedstocks. Energy/ economy/ human population are highly corelated at nearly 1:1:1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sendler2112 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Dubious claims about British vs Dutch historians
editArticle says "The British origins of the revolution is the view shared by the British historians. The Dutch historians disagree" – I struggle to believe that, in this day and age, 100% of British historians take one view on a disputed question and 100% of Dutch historians take the opposite. Maybe each group has a consensus that amounts to less than 100% – but then we should seek to clarify how big the consensus on each side is, and whether it is constant or changing over time. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Dutch bias
editThey seem to be trying to muscle in on something that unequivocally manifested itself wholly as something important in Britain, not the Netherlands. You'd have to assume the Dutch wiki is totally one sided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0A:EF40:12D:A901:3C9D:1D33:8D4D:EFD7 (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)