TF阅读真题第925篇Animal Farming in the Chesapeake Colonies

Animal Farming in the Chesapeake Colonies

The Chesapeake colonies were established by English settlers near Chesapeake Bay in North America in the seventeenth century. Tobacco production was the main source of income, but colonists also owned some livestock brought from England. Although some planters enclosed cattle at night, generally, the disadvantages of enclosing livestock far outweighed the benefits. Building fences and sheds was fairly easy, but feeding animals confined within them was not. Modern cows eat about two percent of their weight in hay each day, and adult pigs consume five or six pounds of food daily. Colonial farmers, already hard- pressed to tend their tobacco fields, could not clear and plant another few acres just for their livestock or spare the labor to gather hay or build barns in which to keep it. It was far easier to let livestock find their own food, and so colonists abandoned English practices of confining livestock in favor of letting their animals run at large. But colonists had to set aside lands where the animals could graze(eat grass or other plants). Because woodlands did not provide optimal grazing, farmers substituted quantity for quality. Just one free-ranging cow needed as much as five acres (about two hectares) of pinewoods to sustain itself in summer and fifteen acres in winter. Even poorer planters, with perhaps ten cows and as many pigs, needed access to 150 or more acres of woods to support their animals.

Because of their dispersal, the animals’ impact on the environment remained limited so long as their population density in any one location stayed low. Over time, however, rising numbers of livestock gradually altered the woodlands that supported them. Cattle set loose in pine forests foraged selectively on grasses and the undergrowth of oaks and other hardwoods. Pigs went after acorns and seeds on the forest floor, but also killed smaller trees by chewing on their roots. Where animals tended to congregate, near clearings and streams, they compacted the soil and crushed ground covers, encouraging erosion. Environmental changes were at first minor, but livestock nonetheless initiated a set of alterations that reduced the land’s capacity to sustain them. This development, in turn, encouraged livestock to range further afield and their owners to appropriate more land for them.

By the 1670s, a seemingly relentless flood of English settlers lined the shores of Chesapeake Bay, pushed up the James, Rappahannock, and Potomac Rivers, and occupied the narrow peninsula of the Eastern Shore. Prospective planters were constantly on the lookout for good land near water transportation and plenty of forest for their livestock. They acquired as many acres as possible so they could abandon old fields for new and find fresh grazing for animals on their estates. Good neighbors, or at least close ones, were a secondary consideration. The demands of tobacco and livestock conspired to keep colonists spread out along rivers, a quarter of a mile or more apart. With such dispersed settlement, marketplaces were slow to appear, churches to gather, and towns to form. Protecting the interests of free-range animals hardly accounted for all of these developments, but the colonists’ style of raising animals certainly contributed to them. If cows were supposed to promote cultural change-the colonists hoped that raising cows would lead Native Americans to adopt a more English way of life-the character of colonial Chesapeake society suggests that they failed at their task.

Had they been able to examine their own behavior objectively, Chesapeake colonists would surely have been stunned to see how far they had drifted from English practices. Though they considered themselves thoroughly English, they acted more like native farmers than English farmers. They lived in small clusters scattered along waterways, as Native Americans did, instead of settling in large towns. They grew native crops of corn and tobacco using native-style hoes, not English plows. Like native farmers, they let exhausted fields lie unused for decades and cleared new plots, putting little effort into enclosing land and none into fertilizing it. Although colonial women could hardly disassemble their houses and carry them on their backs, as native women customarily did, the colonists material goods evoked a sense of sparseness and impermanence usually reserved for descriptions of Native American villages.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

The Chesapeake colonies were established by English settlers near Chesapeake Bay in North America in the seventeenth century. Tobacco production was the main source of income, but colonists also owned some livestock brought from England. Although some planters enclosed cattle at night, generally, the disadvantages of enclosing livestock far outweighed the benefits. Building fences and sheds was fairly easy, but feeding animals confined within them was not. Modern cows eat about two percent of their weight in hay each day, and adult pigs consume five or six pounds of food daily. Colonial farmers, already hard- pressed to tend their tobacco fields, could not clear and plant another few acres just for their livestock or spare the labor to gather hay or build barns in which to keep it. It was far easier to let livestock find their own food, and so colonists abandoned English practices of confining livestock in favor of letting their animals run at large. But colonists had to set aside lands where the animals could graze(eat grass or other plants). Because woodlands did not provide optimal grazing, farmers substituted quantity for quality. Just one free-ranging cow needed as much as five acres (about two hectares) of pinewoods to sustain itself in summer and fifteen acres in winter. Even poorer planters, with perhaps ten cows and as many pigs, needed access to 150 or more acres of woods to support their animals.

According to paragraph 1, Chesapeake farmers usually did not enclose livestock because

 

Factual Information Questions事实信息题

 

Athe types of livestock that they owned disliked being confined

Bfarmers were too busy growing tobacco to provide food to enclosed animals

Clivestock required special kinds of food

Dfarmers had difficulty building enclosures such as fences and sheds

2

The Chesapeake colonies were established by English settlers near Chesapeake Bay in North America in the seventeenth century. Tobacco production was the main source of income, but colonists also owned some livestock brought from England. Although some planters enclosed cattle at night, generally, the disadvantages of enclosing livestock far outweighed the benefits. Building fences and sheds was fairly easy, but feeding animals confined within them was not. Modern cows eat about two percent of their weight in hay each day, and adult pigs consume five or six pounds of food daily. Colonial farmers, already hard- pressed to tend their tobacco fields, could not clear and plant another few acres just for their livestock or spare the labor to gather hay or build barns in which to keep it. It was far easier to let livestock find their own food, and so colonists abandoned English practices of confining livestock in favor of letting their animals run at large. But colonists had to set aside lands where the animals could graze(eat grass or other plants). Because woodlands did not provide optimal grazing, farmers substituted quantity for quality. Just one free-ranging cow needed as much as five acres (about two hectares) of pinewoods to sustain itself in summer and fifteen acres in winter. Even poorer planters, with perhaps ten cows and as many pigs, needed access to 150 or more acres of woods to support their animals.

Which of the following is identified in paragraph 1 as a way in which colonial farmers used woodlands?

 

Factual Information Questions事实信息题

 

AThey cleared areas within woodlands to plant hay for livestock.

BThey set some woodlands aside for future use as tobacco fields

CThey treated woodlands as natural barriers for keeping livestock nearby.

DThey allowed livestock to graze in woodlands

3

Because of their dispersal, the animals’ impact on the environment remained limited so long as their population density in any one location stayed low. Over time, however, rising numbers of livestock gradually altered the woodlands that supported them. Cattle set loose in pine forests foraged selectively on grasses and the undergrowth of oaks and other hardwoods. Pigs went after acorns and seeds on the forest floor, but also killed smaller trees by chewing on their roots. Where animals tended to congregate, near clearings and streams, they compacted the soil and crushed ground covers, encouraging erosion. Environmental changes were at first minor, but livestock nonetheless initiated a set of alterations that reduced the land’s capacity to sustain them. This development, in turn, encouraged livestock to range further afield and their owners to appropriate more land for them.

The word “congregate” in the passage is closest in meaning to

 

Vocabulary Questions词汇题

 

Acause damage

Bgather together

Cgo often

Dseek shelter

4

Because of their dispersal, the animals’ impact on the environment remained limited so long as their population density in any one location stayed low. Over time, however, rising numbers of livestock gradually altered the woodlands that supported them. Cattle set loose in pine forests foraged selectively on grasses and the undergrowth of oaks and other hardwoods. Pigs went after acorns and seeds on the forest floor, but also killed smaller trees by chewing on their roots. Where animals tended to congregate, near clearings and streams, they compacted the soil and crushed ground covers, encouraging erosion. Environmental changes were at first minor, but livestock nonetheless initiated a set of alterations that reduced the land’s capacity to sustain them. This development, in turn, encouraged livestock to range further afield and their owners to appropriate more land for them.

Paragraph 2 supports which TWO of the following statements about livestock animals in woodlands? To receive credit you must select TWO answer choices.

 

Factual Information Questions事实信息题

 

Select 2 answers

AThe more spread out these animals were, the less damage they did to woodlands.

BThese animals damaged the soil and ground vegetation near waterways.

CThese animals damaged the large trees in pine forests.

DPigs caused more damage to woodlands than cattle did.

5

By the 1670s, a seemingly relentless flood of English settlers lined the shores of Chesapeake Bay, pushed up the James, Rappahannock, and Potomac Rivers, and occupied the narrow peninsula of the Eastern Shore. Prospective planters were constantly on the lookout for good land near water transportation and plenty of forest for their livestock. They acquired as many acres as possible so they could abandon old fields for new and find fresh grazing for animals on their estates. Good neighbors, or at least close ones, were a secondary consideration. The demands of tobacco and livestock conspired to keep colonists spread out along rivers, a quarter of a mile or more apart. With such dispersed settlement, marketplaces were slow to appear, churches to gather, and towns to form. Protecting the interests of free-range animals hardly accounted for all of these developments, but the colonists’ style of raising animals certainly contributed to them. If cows were supposed to promote cultural change-the colonists hoped that raising cows would lead Native Americans to adopt a more English way of life-the character of colonial Chesapeake society suggests that they failed at their task.

The word “adopt” in the passage is closest in meaning to

 

Vocabulary Questions词汇题

 

Abe interested in

Blearn about

CPractice

Dbe exposed to

6

By the 1670s, a seemingly relentless flood of English settlers lined the shores of Chesapeake Bay, pushed up the James, Rappahannock, and Potomac Rivers, and occupied the narrow peninsula of the Eastern Shore. Prospective planters were constantly on the lookout for good land near water transportation and plenty of forest for their livestock. They acquired as many acres as possible so they could abandon old fields for new and find fresh grazing for animals on their estates. Good neighbors, or at least close ones, were a secondary consideration. The demands of tobacco and livestock conspired to keep colonists spread out along rivers, a quarter of a mile or more apart. With such dispersed settlement, marketplaces were slow to appear, churches to gather, and towns to form. Protecting the interests of free-range animals hardly accounted for all of these developments, but the colonists’ style of raising animals certainly contributed to them. If cows were supposed to promote cultural change-the colonists hoped that raising cows would lead Native Americans to adopt a more English way of life-the character of colonial Chesapeake society suggests that they failed at their task.

According to paragraph 3, when selecting land to buy, prospective farmers thought about all of the following factors EXCEPT

 

Negative Factual Information Questions否定事实信息题

 

Awhether the land was near water

Bwhether the land had wooded areas for feeding livestock

Cwhether some of the land could be used for fields

Dwhether the land was near places where Native Americans lived

7

Had they been able to examine their own behavior objectively, Chesapeake colonists would surely have been stunned to see how far they had drifted from English practices. Though they considered themselves thoroughly English, they acted more like native farmers than English farmers. They lived in small clusters scattered along waterways, as Native Americans did, instead of settling in large towns. They grew native crops of corn and tobacco using native-style hoes, not English plows. Like native farmers, they let exhausted fields lie unused for decades and cleared new plots, putting little effort into enclosing land and none into fertilizing it. Although colonial women could hardly disassemble their houses and carry them on their backs, as native women customarily did, the colonists material goods evoked a sense of sparseness and impermanence usually reserved for descriptions of Native American villages.

In paragraph 4, the author compares the farming practices of the colonists with the farming practices of Native Americans in order to

 

Factual Information Questions事实信息题

 

Aargue that Native American farmers had adapted to change more easily than colonial farmers had

Bemphasize the differences between colonial and Native American farmers

Csuggest that the colonists had changed more than they realized

Demphasize the speed with which English farming practices had spread in the colonies

8

Had they been able to examine their own behavior objectively, Chesapeake colonists would surely have been stunned to see how far they had drifted from English practices. Though they considered themselves thoroughly English, they acted more like native farmers than English farmers. They lived in small clusters scattered along waterways, as Native Americans did, instead of settling in large towns. They grew native crops of corn and tobacco using native-style hoes, not English plows. Like native farmers, they let exhausted fields lie unused for decades and cleared new plots, putting little effort into enclosing land and none into fertilizing it. Although colonial women could hardly disassemble their houses and carry them on their backs, as native women customarily did, the colonists material goods evoked a sense of sparseness and impermanence usually reserved for descriptions of Native American villages.

According to paragraph 4, Chesapeake colonists and Native Americans were alike in that both

 

Factual Information Questions事实信息题

 

Alived in houses that could easily be taken apart

Bpossessed relatively few household items

Cdepended on large towns for obtaining goods

Dused their fields for decades before clearing land for new fields

9

The Chesapeake colonies were established by English settlers near Chesapeake Bay in North America in the seventeenth century. Tobacco production was the main source of income, but colonists also owned some livestock brought from England. Although some planters enclosed cattle at night, generally, the disadvantages of enclosing livestock far outweighed the benefits. [■]  Building fences and sheds was fairly easy, but feeding animals confined within them was not. Modern cows eat about two percent of their weight in hay each day, and adult pigs consume five or six pounds of food daily.  [■] Colonial farmers, already hard- pressed to tend their tobacco fields, could not clear and plant another few acres just for their livestock or spare the labor to gather hay or build barns in which to keep it.  [■] It was far easier to let livestock find their own food, and so colonists abandoned English practices of confining livestock in favor of letting their animals run at large.  [■] But colonists had to set aside lands where the animals could graze(eat grass or other plants). Because woodlands did not provide optimal grazing, farmers substituted quantity for quality. Just one free-ranging cow needed as much as five acres (about two hectares) of pinewoods to sustain itself in summer and fifteen acres in winter. Even poorer planters, with perhaps ten cows and as many pigs, needed access to 150 or more acres of woods to support their animals.

Look at the four squares [■]  that indicate where the following sentence could be added to the passage

Nor could they afford to buy food for their animals-in 1690, one farmer charged as much as 100 pounds of tobacco a month to feed six penned pigs.

Insert Text Questions句子插入题

 

Where would the sentence best fit？Click on a square  sentence to the passage.

10

In seventeenth-century North America, Chesapeake colonists maint grew tobacco, but they aIso kept livestock.

 

Prose Summary Questions概要小结题

 

Select 3 answers

AOver time, animal farming began to play a role in the Chesapeake economy that was equal to that of tobacco production in its importance.

BSince land near waterways had become crowded with English settlers, colonists spread farther inland in search of high-quality land for their animals to graze on.

CEven though colonial farmers viewed themselves as living an English lifestyle, in fact they adopted many practices associated with local Native American culture

DColonists could not afford to feed enclosed livestock, so they allowed livestock to roam freely, a practice that affected their social relations and required them to obtain grazing land for their animals

EAs the number of farm animals increased, these animals caused changes to the forests that led to a need for even larger areas to feed them.

FAlthough English farming methods often failed and English social customs were difficult to practice, Chesapeake colonists tried to make their lives thoroughly English.