TABLE OF ADMEASUREMENT OF FENCES.
Geological Formation,
&c.		Average
quantity
of
each
field.		Length
of
fencing.		Length
of
fencing,
per
acre.		Width
of
fencing.		Quantity
occupied
by fences
per acre.[24]		Quantity
per
hundred
acres.
Acres.Chains.Chains.Links.Perches.Acres.
1. Red Sandstone51⁄215·582·8315 9·0552⁄3
2. Lias4 12·903·2218 12·3673⁄4
3. Oolite11 20·751·8812 4·813
4. Oxford Clay61⁄216·452·5316 8·6352⁄3
5. Coralline Oolite11 20·751·8814 5·6131⁄2
6. Kimmeridge Clay8 18·252·28161⁄28·655
7. Chalk13 23·271·7912 4·5824⁄5
The average of the above quantity occupied by fences is..43⁄4
A wall, 2 ft. wide, with 1 ft. 3 in. on each side, between
arable fields (oolite)		 - 2·8013⁄4
A wall, 2 ft. wide, between pasture fields (oolite)1·2003⁄4

[24] Including one-third added for angular sinuosities.

The above calculations do not include the strips which are so often found alongside fences, covered by brambles, blackthorns, and other rubbish. Now we have seen what is the quantity of land occupied by fences, it will be our province to ascertain to what extent they may be reduced in size, and yet remain as useful to the agriculturist.

The following table will exhibit the saving per hundred acres, by reducing the width of fences:—

TABLE OF REDUCTION OF FENCES.
Geological Formation.Width,
as in the
preceding
table.		Width
to which
fences
may be
reduced.		Saving
in
width.		Length
per hedge,
per acre.		Saving
in
quantity
per acre.		Saving
per
cent.
Links.Links.Links.Chains.Perches.
1. Red Sandstone15 9 6 2·832·7117⁄10
2. Lias18 101⁄271⁄23·223·8622⁄5
3. Oolite, Forest Marble, and Cornbrash12 71⁄241⁄21·881·3507⁄8
4. Oxford Clay16 91⁄261⁄22·532·6312⁄3
5. Coralline Oolite14 81⁄251⁄21·881·651
6. Kimmeridge Clay161⁄2101⁄26 2·282·1813⁄8
7. Upper & Lower Chalk12 7 5 1·791·4309⁄10

The average quantity of the above saving is 12⁄5 for every 100 acres.

If this saving were effected, which is quite practicable, it would increase the cultivated land in England and Wales 490,000 acres, and would be similar in its effect to the addition of a new county, nearly equal in extent to Nottinghamshire, and somewhat larger than Berkshire.”—Morton’s Cyclopædia of Agriculture, p. 859.

The above is the evidence of a highly practical gentleman as regards the loss by bad, wide, and straggling fences; and if we add to this the additional loss and injury which the land sustains by the growth of hedge-row timber, we shall find that we have even a greater account to settle. Now, if we inquire into the nature of these evils, we shall find that they result from shade, drip, and exhaustion by roots.

There are those who speak in favour of hedge-row timber as affording shade for cattle; but we should remember that when this is so, the cattle, by being thus gathered to one spot, only aid in manuring those portions of the field where the grass is always more rank than nutritious, and this to the robbery of other portions of the field. For ourselves, we would rather have our fields exposed to the influence of sun and air, and, if required, have some contrivances for shade which could be moved about the fields at pleasure. The shade of trees keeps off those refreshing showers so important to vegetation, but in much wet the trees send down a drip which is sometimes found to be so injurious as to prevent any good growth beneath them, and then as the leaves fall off they often poison the soil for some distance, while the roots impoverish the land in every direction.

We have just visited a field, in the southern hedge of which are growing some beech trees; these not only keep off the southern sun, but their drip and fallen leaves render fully one-eighth of the field nearly useless.