The greatest difference between colonial agriculture and indigenous agriculture was that colonial agriculture supplied raw materials to the mother country without regard for the interests of the local natives, while indigenous agriculture had to protect the interests of the local people. The best examples were America and Britain.
Indians in the Americas were the primary victims of new diseases such as smallpox. They had lived on a continent isolated from Europeans, and with the arrival of shipping and contact with Europe, they faced a series of devastating deaths. Overseas trade made the spread of epidemics more uniform while allowing diseases to travel ever faster, and once-isolated societies suffered catastrophic population losses.
Once the natives died, the colonists could occupy their land. At the same time, before mechanized mass production began, slaves bought from Africa could cheaply grow a variety of cash crops on concentrated land even without high yields per acre—cotton, tobacco, sugarcane, corn, and so on. There was also the frontier movement. By contrast, British farmers had to cultivate limited land. If too many foreign crops entered Britain, grain prices would depreciate, and they would not only fail to make money but even suffer losses.
British farmers' interests had to be protected, which was why there were the Corn Laws. Meanwhile, thousands upon thousands of Indians starved to death without any natural disaster occurring in their homeland, because the East India Company had shipped the grain back to Europe.
The Consulate had no intention of adopting this Anglo-Saxon approach. Many scientist deputies had once gone to Egypt with the expeditionary army, and they had not merely carried off artifacts. Unable to obtain supplies from Europe, they had no choice but to develop many local facilities. The scholars could put their knowledge to use in Egypt, as the First Consul