Is it true that during the Agriculture Revolution the price of food went down when there was....?

Question

The new system of four course crop rotation???

**Im talking about the british Agriculture Revolution**

So why did the Price go down ??

Go hmmm urself yasmine

Answer 1

The farmers in Flanders discovered an effective four-field rotation system, introducing turnips and clover to replace the fallow year. Clover was both an ideal fodder crop, and it actually improved grain yields in the following year (clover is part of the pea family, leguminosae). The improved grain production simultaneously increased livestock production. Farmers could grow more livestock because there was more food, and manure was an excellent fertilizer, so they could have even more productive crops. Charles Townshend learned the four field system from Flanders and introduced it to Great Britain in 1730. The price of food went down because of the increased production. The law of supply and demand, the same way grain prices go down today when there is a good year that produces more yield.

Answer 2

Yes, the price of food would go down its a question of economics, because of the new more EFFICIENT system of plant rotation more food became plentiful, and like every valuable commodity, the more of it, the less the cost. Have I helped. I understand what I mean. For instance, if caviar was a quid for a whole jar, then the price would go down. I am ashamed to say that I studied this in history and have forgotten most of it.

Answer 3

Yes it is. But there was an underground movement for all root vegetables that meant many of the best crops never saw the light of day. Meat was also scarce and there was a large demand for cats and dogs on the black market.

Answer 4

You are right, as productivy went up, real prices went down. Same reason a VCR today does not cost $600, as it did in 1978, which is probably like $1,000 today.
Read about Jethro Tull (not the cool band who used his name). He may be one of the most important inovators of the age.
>a

Answer 5

hmmm . . .