In addition to the articles listed below, agriculture is discussed in a number of other articles. Domesticationdescribes the early history. Other aspects of the social structure of agriculturalists are discussed in Community, article on Community development; Manorial economy; rural society; and Village. Other aspects of the economy of agriculture are discussed under Communism, economic organization of; Credit; Famine; Food; Land; Land tenure; and Plantations.

I COMPARATIVE TECHNOLOGY

There are several ways of comparing the agricultural economy of one region with that of another. It can be done in terms of crop distributions, or relative productivity, or the effect on the rural landscape. The method used here will be a classification of agricultural practice in terms of the basic method or technology by which the farmer tackles the job of wresting crops from the earth.

Agricultural technology, as it functions in various natural settings, not only influences crop patterns, productivity, and the landscape, but also affects population density, possibilities for trade and urbanization, and social structure.

If we look around the world and attempt to plot on a map the varying techniques with which different societies face the fundamental tasks of cultivation, we are bound to be struck by the existence, over wide areas containing many millions of people, of relatively unsophisticated techniques that seem to be survivals from an age which the more sophisticated societies have left far behind. There are today but few regions where these unsophisticated techniques are entirely unaffected by new ideas that have spread with modern trade and commerce from those countries with early experience of agrarian revolution (as defined below). The degree of penetration by these new ideas varies widely, however, from place to place.

The agricultural systems of the world may be considered in terms of the following very broad categories, which may, as will be seen, be further subdivided (in some cases using criteria other than technology): (1) shifting cultivation; (2) simple sedentary cultivation with hand tools; (3) simple plow cultivation; (4) cultivation dominated by the effects of the agrarian revolution.

Shifting cultivation

Shifting cultivation is a system under which temporary clearings are made, usually but not invariably in forest country, and cultivated for a short period of years before being allowed to revert to natural vegetation while the cultivator moves on to a succession of new clearings. Typically, the period for which any one patch is in cultivation is a good deal shorter than the period for which it is allowed to lie fallow under naturally regenerating vegetation.

Shifting cultivation as just defined is the dominant agricultural system over wide areas of the earth’s surface. Most of these areas are within the tropics, notably in the Amazon Basin and adjacent areas of South America, in most regions of intertropical Africa, in a number of remote jungle areas in India, in most of the less populated parts of both peninsular and insular southeast Asia, in the highland areas of Manchuria and Korea, and in aboriginal southwest China. This system of agriculture was formerly widespread in many parts of Europe, notably in northwest Spain and in the Black Forest and other forested highland regions of central Europe; survivals may still be encountered. Possibly something like 200 million people, occupying 14 million square miles, are engaged in shifting cultivation.

In addition to the impermanence of cultivation and to the system of “bush-fallow” already mentioned, many but not all systems of shifting cultivation also involve other characteristic traits, notably clearing by slashing and burning the forest or other vegetation (leaving stumps and often bigger trees), and cultivation by hoe, dibble, or digging stick but not by plow.

Perhaps because in western and central Europe shifting cultivation has receded in the face of more advanced techniques of cultivation, there has been a tendency to see it as a primitive method of land use that ought to be replaced or even forbidden. Foresters tend to be particularly hostile to it, because of its undeniably destructive effect on vegetation—shifting cultivators usually (although not always) prefer high forest to low jungle or scrub because under high forest conditions there tends to be a higher humus content and higher fertility. It should be noted, however, that foresters in a number of tropical countries have exploited a system first developed in Burma, the so-called taungya system, under which shifting cultivators are allowed to cultivate clearings on condition that when they abandon them they replant the forest in the form of teak. Hostility to shifting cultivation also springs from those who see it as a cause of soil erosion, particularly when it is practiced on steep slopes—as it is, for example, in Orissa (India) and in the hill tracts behind Chittagong (Pakistan). There can be no doubt that erosion is accelerated in such circumstances. It is worth noting, however, that some shifting cultivators deliberately choose slopes rather than flatter land because it is the former that, under tropical conditions, tend to have the less mature (and therefore less leached and more fertile) soil. There can also be no doubt that shifting cultivation, notably in parts of Africa and Indonesia, has degraded the natural vegetation from forest to grassland.

In a broader sense, too, shifting cultivation may often be seen as an adaptation to tropical soil conditions under which continuous cultivation may be highly dangerous in the absence of advanced techniques for conserving soil and maintaining soil fertility; under such circumstances it may be preferable to cultivate for a year or two and to abandon the plot before too much damage is done to the soil (although in point of fact it is often the impossibility of controlling weeds with hand tools alone, rather than diminished fertility, that drives the cultivator off his plot). It is significant, in this connection, that European settlers in Brazil have, in some areas, taken to a form of shifting cultivation.

It is impossible in the present state of our knowledge to say of all systems of shifting cultivation whether they are in equilibrium with their environment or destructive of it; in many cases more research is needed. A clearer definition of the problem is required because of the wide range of practices, all subsumed in the term “shifting cultivation.” Conklin (1961), for example, shows that “swiddens” (clearings made by shifting cultivators) may or may not be worked with hoes, may or may not be fenced, may be worked from temporary huts or permanent villages, and vary enormously in such features as methods of clearing and duration of fallow. (In this last connection it is important to emphasize that in many regions, notably in west Africa and parts of India and Ceylon, the pressure of population and the demands of cash cropping are such that the period of regeneration between successive periods of cultivation grows shorter and shorter, sometimes until it even disappears altogether. In the absence of techniques of manuring and soil conservation the result is usually the degradation of the soil.) Conklin goes on to point out the merits of “a combined ethnographical and ecological approach” to the study of shifting cultivation and the rarity with which this approach has hitherto been followed.

G. J. A. Terra (1958), writing on southeast Asia with special reference to Indonesia, demonstrates a wide variety of practice among shifting cultivators (who, however, have tended to become sedentary, especially in Java). Thus in Bangka, Billiton, and Minahassa, as well as Halmahera and many other islands of the Moluccas, shifting cultivators have no cattle and depend almost entirely on plots planted with the dibble; but a system of even wider distribution (e.g., in many parts of Sumatra, in southern Celebes, and in the Lesser Sundas) involves shifting cultivation by people who also own cattle and among whom cattle ownership, as in eastern and southern Africa, confers status.

R. F. Watters (1960) also records the wide variety of practice covered by the term “shifting cultivation” and distinguishes a number of major types. He brings out an important point that is often overlooked: shifting cultivation is in a number of areas practiced by people who are perfectly well aware of methods of sedentary cultivation, but use shifting cultivation for a particular category of land. For example, shifting cultivation is practiced in the unirrigable “highlands” in the dry zone of Ceylon, a country where irrigated rice and coconuts are grown respectively in permanent fields on irrigable land and on land with a permanently high water table. In northern Burma, again, culturally identical peoples practice, on the one hand, terraced rice cultivation of hill slopes in areas of high population density, and, on the other, shifting cultivation of similar slopes where population density is low (Leach 1959).

There is, in fact, a close connection between shifting cultivation and low population density: beyond a critical density (which varies with local conditions) the period of regeneration allowed to the natural vegetation becomes too short, and deterioration tends to set in unless the cultivators adopt some of the techniques by which sedentary cultivators manage to cultivate the same field year in and year out. This is one way by which the transition from shifting to sedentary cultivation may be effected; another is the planting of commercial crops, especially permanent tree crops, in abandoned clearings by shifting cultivators (the rubber grown in Sumatra is a good example).

Simple sedentary cultivation with hand tools

It does not follow, however, that all simple sedentary cultivation (that is, for present purposes, sedentary cultivation without recourse to the plow) represents the fixation of shifting cultivation. In southeast Asia, for example, it may well be that the most ancient surviving form of cultivation is the use of permanent gardens to grow bananas, various tubers such as Dioscorea yams and taro (Colocasia esculenta), and tree crops such as the coconut and, less frequently, the sago palm. Carl O. Sauer (1952) believes that this was the earliest of all forms of cultivation. It survives as the sole form of land use in remote Indonesian islands like the Mentawai Islands; and something very like it provides the basic system in Polynesia, where it survives (e.g., in Fiji) in the form of specially prepared and irrigated taro beds. In all these cases, except where modern influences have prevailed, cultivation is by digging stick or, less commonly, by hoe. Fertility in tuber gardens is maintained by a rest period. Tree crops can, of course, be permanent, for trees bring nutriment up from lower horizons of the soil and protect the earth from erosion; they are therefore relatively easy to maintain in equilibrium with the environment—provided the climate is suitable—though yields are often very low indeed in the absence of pest control and fertilizers.

The mixed garden (containing both tree crops and a wide variety of vegetables) that is so characteristic of much of the rice-growing regions of southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent may be regarded as a special development from the system just described.

In many parts of Africa south of the Sahara “women’s gardens” are to be found immediately around the village. In them vegetables, bananas, and other crops are grown by hand tillage on a more or less permanent basis. The gardens are kept fertile by means of manure from goats, chickens, and the villagers themselves, together with household refuse and ashes.

The agricultural systems of the Inca in pre-Columbian America and of their latter-day successors represent a fine example of sedentary but plowless agriculture in part dependent on irrigation and the terracing of steep slopes.

It must be recognized, however, that it would be extremely difficult to draw a map of the world and to plot on it all examples of the land-use technique currently under discussion and, in particular, to identify all existing cases of the fixation of cultivation in areas traditionally devoted to shifting cultivation. Much more work on this problem is needed.

Simple plow cultivation

It will be appreciated that two of the basic problems that confront the sedentary cultivator are the maintenance of soil fertility and the control of weeds. If fertility cannot be maintained fields must be periodically abandoned, and the cultivation is no longer truly sedentary; if weeds proliferate too extensively (as in the chena, the patch of the Ceylonese shifting cultivator), the same applies. The use of even the simple wooden plow goes a long way toward the solution of both problems. The ability of the plowman to cover at least some of his weeds, and thus to kill them, also adds to the humus in the soil. The deeper and more systematic cultivation made possible by the plow tends to bring to the surface plant-nutrients taken down by percolating rainfall and to improve soil structure; the presence of draft animals to pull the plow at least gives the possibility of stall-feeding and hence systematic manuring—a possibility that is unfortunately not always realized in practice.

Over a vast area stretching from the Mediterranean and the Balkans to the Japanese archipelago, and from central Asia to Ceylon, agricultural technology is still dominated by a simple, traditional plow culture, only marginally affected by the agrarian revolution and those other developments that have transformed the agriculture of such regions as western Europe, North America, and Australia. The vast populations of India, China, and the Middle East depend for their food supply on traditional methods of sedentary tillage using the types of wooden plow handed down from remote generations.

Within this great cultural region there may be recognized a number of subcultures, separated on grounds of technology and associated crop pattern.

In the Middle East, from Afghanistan and Iran to Egypt, one can recognize a belt of plow cultures, perhaps the most ancient of all, where animaldrawn plows appeared much before 3000 B.C. It is characterized, among other things, by a reliance on irrigation of a wide variety of types, from the ancient and modern systems dependent on the Nile to the ingenious tunnels (karez) of Iran and the multitudinous devices used by the oasis dweller. In this area, too, the terracing of hill slopes is in many places a highly developed traditional technique.

The lands around the Mediterranean, with their highly distinctive climate and cultural history, also form a subregion within the belt of plow cultures. The most characteristic and traditional technology hinges on a twofold system of land use: the fields, traditionally growing the staple cereal crops, wheat and barley, and in some places irrigated; and the hillside plantations of vines and olives, figs, and other tree crops. Everywhere (especially in the south of France, in Italy, and in Israel) traditional methods are, however, being rapidly replaced by more specialized cultivation under the impact of commerce and of the agrarian revolution.

In the Balkan peninsula and in certain geographical pockets in western, central, and northern Europe one reaches what may, for convenience and brevity, be regarded as the cool temperate variant of traditional plow culture—the cultivation, using oxen or horses as draft animals, of wheat and barley in favorable places, and of oats and rye in wetter and cooler places, with a fair range of ancillary crops. Here are European peasant societies still relatively unaffected by the agrarian revolution: but the word “relatively” is used advisedly, for almost everywhere today, under the impact of modern communications or commerce, and of institutional changes in communist countries, the old order is vanishing and the transition to a more modern agricultural technology and economy is being effected, here slowly, there more rapidly. Some of the largest agglomerations of population depend on an association of the plow and of other simple animal-drawn tools (harrows, leveling boards, and the like) with irrigated (or, at any rate, flooded-field) rice cultivation. This subculture covers much of Ceylon, southern India, Bengal, and Assam, the deltas of mainland southeast Asia, Java, Sumatra, the Philippines, and southern China and Japan. The total area under “wet” rice (as distinct from “dry” rice grown by shifting or rudimentary sedentary cultivation) exceeds 200 million acres, and rice forms the staple food of well over half the world’s people. Rice is a remarkable crop in other ways too. Because it exists in so many varieties it can be grown under widely varying conditions, from brackish or even saline soils to deeply flooded deltas like those of Thailand and South Vietnam. In many places, given enough water, it can supply two crops on the same land each year. And—a very important point —it can give worthwhile yields on the same land year after year for generations without manuring, although, of course, yields may be greatly increased by the judicious use of manure; dry crops under similar conditions tend, in the tropics at any rate, to give declining yields that may well stabilize at an uneconomic level. The reasons for this valuable property of wet rice are probably to be sought in such factors as the nutrients and clay minerals brought in by irrigation water and the lower temperatures preserved by flooding, which, with anaerobic conditions for much of the year, lower the rate of oxidation and loss of nutrients of vegetable matter. Just as irrigated wheat cultivation historically became identified with the rise of many sociocultural institutions of Western civilization, so with rice cultivation goes a whole way of life, a whole type of civilization, together with the possibility of supporting dense populations for centuries, if not for millennia.

Among the populations supported by plow cultivation of rice there are, not surprisingly, many variations in agricultural economy and technology. Some rice cultivators have highly developed techniques of terracing hillsides and of controlling water in the terraces (e.g., in the hills of Ceylon, in Java, and in the interior of Luzon); others tackle land that is almost flat (e.g., in southern Thailand and in the Malay Peninsula). Again, some rice cultivators, as in China, employ almost incredible ingenuity in seeing that every scrap of waste organic matter finds its way back to the soil—indeed, their technology tends to be intensive gardening rather than plow culture—whereas others, in regions that until recently felt but little pressure of population, use no manure at all except under the modern pressure exerted by a cash economy and by government agencies (e.g., in lowland Ceylon).

North and west of the great rice-growing areas of India and China, in the dry plateaus of the Deccan and the great Indo-Gangetic plains, and the loesslands and delta of the mighty but dangerous Hwang Ho, are other large populations of farmers, densely settled in fertile plains, less densely (but still thickly by American standards) in rockier plateaus with thinner soils. These form two more subcultures, as it were, of the great Old World belt of plow cultures, devoted to millets, wheat, oilseeds, sugar cane, and cotton rather than to rice and its ancillaries. The north Indian peasant tends to have less intensive techniques and lower yields than his north Chinese counterpart, although in India the situation is changing (albeit rather patchily) and China, of course, feels the impact of the communist agrarian measures.

The agrarian revolution

In Europe, agricultural developments of the last three hundred years have wrought such changes in technology and economy that they demand separate, though necessarily summary, treatment. The source of the changes concerned lies, of course, in the agrarian revolution in the widest sense of that term, including not only technical changes but changes in conditions of land holding. A whole complex of developments is thus involved, including the replacement of fallowing with constant tillage; the introduction of new crops and of new breeds of animals; the effects of evolving communications on the specialization of agricultural production; structural change in the agrarian system (evolutionary in the West, revolutionary in Russia); and, more recently, the impact of modern science and engineering as seen in mechanization, pest and disease control, artificial fertilizers, and the evolution of strains of crop suited to particular conditions and resistant to specific diseases. One has only to compare a modern farm in, say, East Anglia (England) or the United States with a peasant holding in India or Egypt to see the contrast. Yet an increasing number of peasant holdings in India and in Egypt are feeling some of the effects of the revolution in question. In both countries, for instance, the peasant may have a very small holding and be cultivating it with a wooden plow and draft animals that have changed little since the time of Ashoka or of the pharaohs; but in both countries he may well be growing, for a distant market, an American variety of cotton developed by scientific genetic research.

It would be difficult to attempt a description of all the types of agricultural technology or of cropping patterns that have emerged and are constantly evolving from the revolutionary changes just mentioned, even if the requisite data were everywhere available. One or two salient characteristics may, however, be highlighted and one or two technological subtypes enumerated. One of the outstanding characteristics of modern agriculture—whether in land of comparatively new settlement such as North America, Argentina, or Australia, or in older agricultural areas such as western Europe—is the high and mounting degree of mechanization, characterized first by new plows, harvesters, and other implements drawn by horses, and then by tractordrawn implements and self-propelled machines like the combine harvester or the rotary tiller. Originally a response mainly to the need for constant tillage, weed control, and other desiderata of the earlier agrarian reformers, the movement toward mechanization has been vastly stimulated by the existence in lands of new settlement of enormous areas of virgin soil combined with a great dearth of labor. The relationship between mechanization and the relative abundance of land and of labor seems to be forgotten by those who advocate wholesale mechanization in underdeveloped and over-populated countries. Wholesale mechanization of Indian agriculture would, for example, merely swell to uncontrollable numbers the already large army of rural unemployed or grossly underemployed, at the same time reducing yields per acre where at present, as in parts of Madras State, the intensive application of hand methods gives phenomenal yields, in this case of rice. The answer would appear to be selective mechanization of processes such as plowing hard-caked soil, impossible under present methods, or of processes handicapped, despite the over-all surplus of labor, by seasonal shortage—for example, weeding the standing paddy crop. In western Europe and elsewhere, mechanization has been associated with a drift of labor from the land into other occupations and often into towns, and with a decline in the proportion of the national labor force engaged in cultivation to a figure that sounds unbelievable to, say, Indian ears.

Another outstanding characteristic of modern agricultural technology is the breeding of new varieties of crops. These new varieties have in some cases revolutionized agricultural geography; for example, it seems probable that none of the lands in the United States west of the Mississippi would be growing wheat today if the only available varieties were those brought by the Pilgrim Fathers. The poleward and desertward march of agriculture is a feature of our times, but it carries with it its own dangers—notably of soil erosion in the case of the extension of cultivation toward and into arid regions.

Monoculture

An outstanding characteristic of modern agriculture is its high degree of specialization. Most African farmers would find it very hard to understand the agricultural methods of, say, a Wiltshire (England) dairy farmer, who produces nothing but liquid milk, of which he consumes only a few pints a day, and who must buy everything else he needs, including even milk products like butter and cheese. It is, of course, the rise of urban and industrial markets, the spread of modern communications, and the development of an exchange economy that have, with changes in methods of production, brought about the world of specialized agricultural production in which we live. Wheat farming in the Canadian prairies, cocoa farming in Ghana, citrus planting in Israel, truck farming in Florida, and cotton production in Russian central Asia are a few examples out of thousands that might be cited. The modern farmer chooses his crop not by applying a traditional technology and a limited range of crop choices to local natural conditions but by watching the market (often distorted, or at any rate affected, by state action). But the farmer still flouts natural conditions at his peril, as those in the dust bowls of the 1930s found to their cost. Monoculture in particular carries grave perils—not only of declining fertility, but of diseases that spread like wildfire when they find ready victims of the same species, or even variety, for mile after mile across country.

One of the most familiar examples of monocultural techniques is the tropical plantation—of tea in Ceylon, of rubber on the Malay Peninsula, of sisal in Tanganyika, and so on. Originally these large units of production, opened up by means of imported capital, often operated by imported labor, and working for distant markets, stood in stark contrast to minuscule local peasant holdings: hence (in part) the theory of the “dual economy,” two contrasting economies side by side in the same area. But in many countries today—notably in Ceylon—local capital and enterprise is active in the plantations, and small holders and peasants are planting the crops once almost entirely confined to the large alien holdings. In other countries, for example Indonesia, the plantation is seen as an alien, colonialist intrusion, and is on the way out.

Conclusions

It cannot be denied that, taking the world picture as a whole, the shifting cultivator, the plowless sedentary cultivator, and the traditional plow cultivator are retreating before the advance of modern commercial agriculture; to be more precise, elements of the modern agricultural technology and of modern agricultural organization are penetrating the formerly almost static world of traditional agriculture. It may be in the form of a new crop (for example, the spectacular spread of manioc—Manihot utilissima—from the New World tropics to almost all parts of the Old World tropics); or the use of artificial fertilizer; or a new system of green manuring. It may be the addition of a steel tip and mold board to a traditional wooden plow, or the development of truck farming, or heavy emphasis on a commercial crop such as cocoa in Ghana or rubber in Malaya.

But this is not to say that all the features of the more ancient agricultural economies are about to disappear, still less that they ought to disappear. There is great danger in the wholesale transplantation of an agricultural technology from one environment to another—witness the spectacular failure of the scheme for mechanized production of groundnuts in Tanganyika. And the dangers are not only physical dangers, dangers to soil and plant cover. There are also grave social dangers. The effects of wholesale and indiscriminate mechanization on an overpopulated society have already been discussed. It is always useful, and often essential, to start from the assumption that a long-standing system of agricultural technology represents an adaptation to local physical and social conditions, albeit at a lower technical level and sometimes in terms of past social conditions, especially where the population/land ratio is concerned.

There is much research to be done everywhere on the relationships involved. Only when there is an understanding of the existing system can changes safely be introduced or adapted.

B. H. Farmer

[See alsoLand tenure. Other relevant material may be found inAsian society, article onsoutheast asia.]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Conklin, Harold C. 1961 The Study of Shifting Cultivation. Current Anthropology 2:27–61. → A bibliography appears on pages 35–59.

Curwen, Eliot C.; and Hatt, Gudmund (1946–1953) 1953 Plough and Pasture: The Early History of Farming. New York: Schuman. → Part 1: Prehistoric Farming of Europe and the Near East, by Eliot C. Curwen. Part 2: Farming of Non-European Peoples, by Gudmund Hatt. Part 1 was published in 1946 as Plough and Pasture.

Dumont, RenÉ (1954) 1957 Types of Rural Economy: Studies in World Agriculture. New York: Praeger. → First published as Économie agricole dans le monde.

Faucher, Daniel 1949 Géographic agraire: Types de cultures. Paris: Librairie de Médicis.

Forde, C. Daryll (1934) 1963 Habitat, Economy and Society: A Geographic Introduction to Ethnology. London: Methuen.

George, Pierre 1956 La campagne: Le fait rural à travers le monde. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

Gourou, Pierre (1947) 1964 The Tropical World: Its Social and Economic Conditions and Its Future Status. 3d ed. New York: Wiley. → First published as Les pays tropicaux: Principes d’une géographic humaine et économique.

Grist, Donald H. (1953) 1959 Rice. 3d ed. London: Longmans.

King, Franklin H. (1911) 1927 Farmers of Forty Centuries: Or, Permanent Agriculture in China, Korea and Japan. New York: Harcourt.

Leach, Edmund R. 1959 Some Economic Advantages of Shifting Cultivation. Volume 7, pages 64–66 in Pacific Science Congress, Ninth, Bangkok, 1957, Proceedings. Bangkok: Secretariat, Ninth Pacific Science Congress.

Sauer, Carl O. 1952 Agricultural Origins and Dispersals. New York: American Geographical Society.

Siegfried, AndrÉ; (1943) 1947 The Mediterranean. New York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce. → First published as Vue générale de la Méditerranée.

Terra, G. J. A. 1958 Farm Systems in Southeast Asia. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 6:157–182.

Warriner, Doreen (1939) 1965 The Economics of Peasant Farming. 2d ed. New York: Barnes & Noble.

Watters, R. F. 1960 The Nature of Shifting Cultivation: A Review of Recent Research. Pacific Viewpoint 1:59–99.

Weulersse, Jacques 1946 Paysans de Syrie et du Proche-Orient. Paris: Gallimard.

Whittlesey, Derwent S. 1936 Major Agricultural Regions of the Earth. Association of American Geographers, Annals 26:199–240.

Wittfogel, Karl A. 1957 Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press. → A paperback edition was published in 1963 by Yale University Press.

II SOCIAL ORGANIZATION

Agriculture-related social action is typically organized through such groupings as the following: the family, which is both a producing and consuming unit, as is also the large estate, such as the manor, the hacienda, the cooperative farm, or the collective; work teams of various composition; associations organized for such purposes as irrigation, drainage, marketing, and purchasing; and related systems from which issue such services as education and religion. The student of agricultural organization is interested in the relationships that compose these units, the relations of these units to one another, and their relationships or linkages to larger pluralities, such as the society and nation and their various subsystems.

The pursuit of such knowledge is impeded by the following factors. First, there is a lack of adequate historical records. A second problem is the vagueness of the term “agricultural organization” and the lack of specificity in its use. If all activities related to agriculture are included, as in the case of “agribusiness,” a sizable proportion of the population may be involved, even in an industrialized nation (for example, 30-40 per cent of the United States labor force); if only those engaged in farming are included, the proportions, especially in industrialized nations, will be much smaller (for example, 12 per cent of the United States labor force). The incomparability of unlikes is also a problem: a farm run by a nuclear family cannot be effectively compared with a hacienda run by hundreds of people. Outwardly similar units may be rendered incomparable by fundamentally different forms of tenure, distribution of power, and extent of status-role differentiation. Finally, ideological differences complicate the study of agricultural organization. For example, the idealization of the peasant family form of agriculture under the German Nazis and similar groups leads to a different viewpoint than that arrived at by the communists, whose view of agriculture is essentially pragmatic. Studies of agriculture undertaken by the Nazi government revealed that familysized farms, as compared to large estates, yielded as much or more of all crops to the market (per unit of land), as well as more human beings; more “cannon fodder” was often the interpretation of this phenomenon by those of different ideological persuasion. Also, the persistent belief that social stability and military strength, viewed as national needs, can be maintained only by a large and prosperous rural population, is an a priori point of view that is not conducive to objectivity.

The typological approach

Almost from the beginning of sociology, concepts that have facilitated the ordering of social action on and between ideal or constructed poles (often called “types”) have been employed in the analysis of many forms of organization, particularly in the case of agricultural organization. Probably the most generally used of these types are Ferdinand Tönnies’ concepts of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft (1887), which arose from their author’s familiarity with both agricultural and nonagricultural organizations. The essence of the Gesellschaft-like organization (such as a factory or army) is the all-important, functionally specific goal (such as profits for the factory or winning a battle for the army) shared by the actors; in the pursuit of that goal, facilities and means, including human relationships, are used in a manner that is instrumental, efficient, and economical. The opposite of the Gesellschaft-like organization is “farming as a way of life” carried on for its own sake. The greater the tendency for agricultural organization to be a “way of life,” the less functionally specific are both goals and norms and the more Gemeinschaft-like the organization will be. The essence of Gemeinschaft-like organization and the social relations that compose it is the goal of furthering and maintaining the social relations themselves, which are never subordinated to functionally specific goals. Gemeinschaft-like organizations typically give high priority to the communication of sentiment for effective goal attainment. Status roles, rank, and power tend to be allocated by such ascriptive factors as sex and age in Gemeinschaft-like organizations, whereas these are typically allocated by achievement—demonstrated or potential—in the Gesellschaft-like organizations.

Such polar types (which are not to be confused with classificatory concepts, with variables, or with models) represent dimensions that do not exist in the real world—a fact that does not reduce their analytical utility. There probably is no organization, for example, all of whose members always place goal achievement above any consideration for social relationships, as is typified in the pure Gesellschaft. Similarly, there probably is no organization all of whose members always subordinate instrumental goals to make only the relationship, such as love, revenge, or friendship, an end in itself, as is typified in the pure Gemeinschaft. Determinative system theory, such as is employed in physics, often cannot utilize ideal types, which are of greatest use in the preliminary exploration of the general nature of phenomena. Among the most useful types are local versus cosmopolitan, traditional versus modern, folk versus urban, primary versus nonprimary, and the trilogy—familistic, contractual, and compulsory [seecommunity-society continua; see also Tönnies 1887].

The processual–structural approach

Certain general processual patterns may be noted as one traces the development of man’s effort to produce more and better food and fiber with minimum effort. Different as is primitive agriculture from the sequential stages of technological advance now culminated in the agriculture of urbanized Western society, certain common elements and processes are apparent at all stages. One way of approaching the analysis of these general patterns is by specification of the elements and processes observed to be common to all social systems (Loomis 1960, pp. 1–47, especially fig. 1, p. 8). The following discussion of agricultural organization will be guided by this approach and reinforced by use of concepts from the Gemeinschaft—Gesellschaft typology.

Up to the time of the industrial revolution, relationships in agricultural organization were almost universally Gemeinschaft-like, and kinship ties were of utmost importance. Child-parent relations in the family or extensions of such patterns to the feudal manor controlled by a surrogate father or lord (patron) were evaluated most highly—so highly that they were ends in and of themselves and diffused with intense sentiment. In Gemeinschaft-like agricultural organizations, processes such as that of allocation of status roles, rank, and power conformed to age-old patterns, and the actors observed norms that specified action for every possible exigency (Loomis 1960, pp. 57–118, especially fig. 2, p. 61). The principle of ascription, or who the actor was, was followed, rather than that of achievement, or what the actor could do. These considerations restricted the rational, efficient, and economic use of nonhuman facilities and human services.

Barriers to rational action

Nonhuman facilities, such as real estate and instruments of production, are alienable and subject to successive allocations in the Gesellschaft-like organization, such as the farm that is run for profit. The more Gesellschaft-like the organization is, the freer its members are to enter or be placed in new social relations, discontinue old ones, move in space, and be subject to change in status roles, power, and rank. Inalienable instruments of production, unchanging social relations, and inviolable allocations of status roles, power, and rank constitute inhibitions to the rational use both of human and nonhuman resources. Agricultural organizations of the past and so-called underdeveloped agricultural societies of the present tend to harbor such inhibitions.

It has frequently been hypothesized by sociologists that the higher the value of an object (especially if its use is fused with sentiment), the greater are the inhibitions to its rational use. In the case of ends, value may be measured in terms of willingness of actors to make sacrifices to obtain or to retain an object. In the case of a norm, value may be measured by the intensity of indignation when the norm is violated and by the degree of harshness of the negative sanction imposed upon the violator. Societies in which malnutrition is commonplace and famines are frequent would, according to the hypothesis, tend to value land very highly and to accord it a quality of sacredness; other facilities requisite to a basic food supply would become fused with affectivity and hedged about with restrictions. The hypothesis would explain the widespread restrictions on free sale, purchase, or ex-change of land, which in turn is often the most important basis for allocation of status roles, rank, and power, since these latter are often ascribed by the relationship of a given actor to the land; the manor’s lord, cotters, and villeins are well-known examples (Loomis & Beegle 1950). It has been observed that food crops in the field and immediately after harvest are often considered sacred; their movement and use during this period must be accompanied by proper ritual. Once the crops are sold, they lose their sacred nature. Similarly, the hypothesis may be applied to explain various types of restrictions on the mobility and alienability of human services in feudal and other traditional organizations.

The limits of rationality in agriculture. Contrary to the cyclical theories of development, agricultural organization has, at least since the industrial revolution, become increasingly efficient and economical in respect to human effort and facilities. Exceptions may be cited in various cases of extreme anomie, as disorder becomes so common and painful that reaction in the form of ultraconservative movements occurs, such as in the German Nazi and Italian fascist movements. The over-all trend, however, has been a shift from Gemeinschaft-like restrictions on utilization of non-human facilities and human services in goal attaining activities toward Gesellschaft-like relations in which these restrictions are at least partially eliminated.

Is it likely that the degree of rationality that attends industrial and market organization in its most Gesellschaft-like form can be made to attend agricultural organization? To explore this possibility, let a given agricultural facility, for instance a unit of land, be likened to a unit of money, say a hundred dollar bill. When the possession, exchange, and transfer of a unit of land can be effected with the same sentimental detachment that would mark the possession, exchange, and transfer of a hundred dollar bill, then a parallel degree of rationality will be evinced by the two types of organization. Most students of rural life and agricultural organization cannot foresee as a likely occurrence early rationalization of agriculture, when land, livestock, machinery, and plant would be as removed from the sacred and as imbued with the secular as are parallel operations in nonagricultural production.

Feudal tenures and relationships

Under medieval European tenure, the feudal manor operated with some slaves who could be sold, but most agricultural workers were, in effect, bound to the soil as serfs and were transferred with the estate, although there were degrees of serfdom and some serfs eventually became free peasants. In rank the bondsmen were below the lesser gentry, the nobility, and the royalty. The basic unit was the tribal group or peasant family, which was characteristic of the less fully developed form of German feudalism that spread to the Low Countries and to the north of Italy, as well as of the fully developed French feudalism that came to prevail in England, northern Spain, the two Sicilies, and the Levant (Boissonnade 1921, p. 120 in 1929 edition). How each man was related to the land determined whether he could marry and under what conditions, what services and payments he would have to render, and under what conditions he could leave the estate. His tenure status prescribed his status role, his rank, and his power. The concept Gemeinschaft from Tünnies and the similar concept “status” from Maine (1861) arose out of the great differences that they noted between the feudal tenures of the Middle Ages and (a) the Gesellschaft-like and contractual relations of the present day and (b) the latifundia (arising out of the enclosure movement in England from 1450 to 1600) and other developments elsewhere, as the customary rights of the various tenure groups of lower rank were disregarded and latifundia came into being.

Out of the feudal system grew a stratification pattern based upon the estates, or stände as they are called in Germany. These specified the status roles, rank, power, and life-style of members and institutionalized the means of entry or expulsion by ritual forms. Most of the bases for allocation of placement as exercised under this form of stratification are ascriptive; they have long been associated with rural societies and are still found today in many parts of the world. Since modern business, commerce, and industry require a specified performance, they tend to dissolve the estate form of stratification and replace the ascriptive allocation of its members with allocation by achievement. In the ideal typological form of complete Gesellschaft, there emerges an open-class system in which all persons find their places according to their skills, technical competency, and contributions, with no importance attached to the class position of one’s antecedents or to one’s age or sex. Opposite to this is the caste system of stratification that is found most commonly in agricultural and rural societies, the most extreme example of which exists in India.

Importance of the feudal system. There has been considerable transmission of feudal ideology and of feudal norms, especially those related to rank and power, to the present industrial organization in areas of feudal background, such as England and Germany. Other legacies, however, from the feudal era are probably of greater importance. One such is the influence it had upon the thinking of Marx and Engels, who furnished the basic ideology for communism in Russia and China. The once feudal nations are often contrasted with those having no feudal history in respect to class structure and attitudes toward authority. Marxian doctrine places capitalism in an important intermediary stage between feudalism (or something comparable) and communism. Marx had an unusual interest in the United States, perhaps because of its lack of feudal background. Lenin on the other hand studied the exploitation of Negroes in the rural South and leaped to the conclusion that the United States would follow the European pattern. Marxist and Leninist doctrine aside, recent history shows that industrializing societies without feudal backgrounds more easily adopt equalitarian achievement motivation than do others.

Successors to the feudal pattern

Most of the agriculture of the noncommunist world may be classified according to whether the central producing and consuming unit is the farm family, the large estate, such as the hacienda or the latifundium, or a mixture of these two types of units. The haciendas, latifundia, and similar forms frequently arose out of feudalism. In England, the enclosure movements and other pressures resulted in virtual dispossession of those villagers and farmers that possessed communal property. Much the same development occurred along the Baltic coast in Mecklenburg and Holstein, and in Swedish Pomerania, where the peasants, who were long accustomed to communal tenure of grazing and grass lands, had no protection against property appropriation. The rapidity of change from Gemeinschaft-like relations, with protection based upon custom, to Gesellschaft-like norms of contact left rural dwellers in many areas in a state of semishock, without the necessary knowledge and linkages for secure existence in the new order. The right to ownership and transfer of property in fee simple was not achieved for the peasants in the French Revolution. Owing in part to this failure almost half of the land of France, Italy, and Spain came to be worked by tenants and sharecroppers (Dietze 1933, p. 49). Outright ownership by peasants occurred in much larger proportions in Germany and in the Scandinavian kingdoms.

The farm family. Even during the feudal period, when most rural dwellers were subjected to the feudal system, there were yeomen who, as small independent landholders, continued a free existence in limited areas of Europe, such as Upper Bavaria, Swabia, Thuringia, Saxony, Frisia, and Holstein. An ideology of the yeoman—a farm owner and operator without indebtedness—can be traced to areas where substantial numbers of farm families remained free from bondage to the land. A number of leaders, such as Thomas Jefferson, believed that democracy could best survive when many such farmers, who were ready to fight any attempts to subordinate them, peopled the countryside. For Jefferson, who believed that an occasional revolution was good for the political health of nations, it would be these “free yeomen” who would begin such revolutions.

The so-called family farm is a productive unit in which the family is the central entrepreneurial work unit. The designation covers enterprises of widely different character. A family farm in New Jersey may consist of three acres and one thousand laying hens; in Oregon it may comprise 3,200 acres of wheat and grazing land. In the Western Hemisphere the family farm is a vital force in the agriculture of widely dispersed societies, such as Costa Rica, Chile, southern Brazil, Colombia, the United States, and Canada. Turkey, India, Pakistan, Japan, and Korea are examples of areas in the Eastern Hemisphere where the family farm organization is extensive and important. In some respects it constitutes an American ideal. It became the model used by the Allies in reorganizing conquered areas under their control at the end of World War II. Like other American businesses, farms and ranches tend to become larger and larger for many purposes of production. Nevertheless, the “sacredness” of the family farm is frequently demonstrated in American political action at home, as well as in policy for improving agricultural practices abroad.

In most of the industrialized countries where the family farm has predominated, family control is decreasing as the farming operations become larger. An example may be taken from the Heide areas of Germany, which have long been famous for a free peasantry. There the once independent peasants are increasingly beholden to authorities and creditors, many of whom are from the cities, as competitive agriculture fosters the use of costly overhead irrigation systems, which at once irrigate and fertilize the soil and crops. Other developments that may decrease control by the farm family are the following: increased specialization, greater capitalization, greater dependence on both domestic and foreign markets, and increasing employment of farm family members in industry, resulting in part-time farming and dependence upon the urban wage economy. In addition, vertical integration increasingly links the farm family to various other systems, thereby depriving it of autonomy. An example is provided in the widespread practice of contract farming in the poultry industry, organized by hatcherymen or feed dealers who agree to supply chicks, feed, medicine, capital, electricity, heat, and supervision. Although the prices for poultry are guaranteed to the farmer, the system tends to deprive previously independent farm families of the “yeoman freedom,” making them semisharecroppers under control of urban contractors and capital suppliers.

Changes in agricultural organization

Rapid change in agricultural practices and organization usually comes from societal units outside the immediate agricultural system. Perhaps the chief exception to this generalization in the literature on agriculture is the manner in which there developed a relatively highly advanced form of agriculture among the various Protestant sects, such as the Mennonites and the Amish, especially in the German Palatinate. They were known as “clover” farmers and, because of their great ability as agriculturists, were sought by princes of the time to operate farms of the nobility. Farmers from this same strain also became outstanding agriculturists in Pennsylvania and elsewhere in the New World without outside assistance. I conjecture that this exceptional development may have issued from the knowledge of scholarly Roman Catholic priests who had access in the universities and the monasteries of the time to advanced knowledge about agriculture and who defected in sizable numbers during this epoch, often to found or to join such nonconformist religious groups as those later known as the Mennonites and the Amish. If this interpretation is correct, it is a most interesting form of systemic linkage, by which the defecting priests brought knowledge beyond that of the traditional base to the peasant groups of which they became a part.

Systemic linkage

The traditional base of knowledge gathered from generations of actual farming experience is generally insufficient to spark rapid change. Gemeinschaft-like societies, which typically live by tradition, distrust innovations. Only as agricultural organizations are linked to various knowledge producing and distributing centers does rapid change in agriculture take place. Typical linkages promoting changes are those with credit facilities, organized experimental animal and plant stock breeding, and market economies. Wherever very rapid change in agriculture has taken place, these facilities have been available. No country with advanced agriculture is today without agricultural experiment stations or other forms of scientific activity, operating to improve planting and animal stocks as well as agricultural practices, organization, and technology generally.

Systemic linkage between these agencies and the agricultural production units may take many forms and should receive more careful study than it has been given. The folk schools, universities, and agricultural services have been important in Denmark. Extension services in the United States, rural academies in Pakistan, national ministries of agriculture in Latin America, and agencies of community development and cooperation in India are other examples of the institutionalized linkages between agricultural research and practice. Everywhere that rapid progress has been made, agricultural credit has been made available on a rational basis at interest rates comparable to or lower than those prevailing in other productive enterprises. The credit system of usury, common in the underdeveloped areas of the Far East (which often require that the borrower pay 100 to 300 per cent per annum to a local moneylender bearing a semi-Gemeinschaft-like, personal, or patron relation to the debtor), usually must be abolished or radically modified before rapid progress in agricultural production can take place.

Of utmost importance is the form of the linkage between the agricultural production organizations —whatever type of farm that might be—and the centers of knowledge about such facilities as credit, markets, and the results of basic and applied research. Especially in underdeveloped areas, the chief lack is not in knowledge itself but rather in the transmission of that knowledge. Such scientific establishments as experiment stations, research laboratories in government bureaus, and universities do the “cognitive mapping” necessary to improve the practices, stocks, and technology (Loomis 1960, pp. 12–13, 68–69). The incumbents of certain status roles, such as teachers and extension workers, link the systems in which the concern is cognitive mapping with the systems in which the concern is efficient production. To be effective in their status roles, such professionals not only must have mastered their own specialties in the agricultural sciences but must also be adept at appraising those systems most amenable to linkage. The rate of adoption of new agricultural practices will vary as these factors vary in effectiveness.

Diffusion of innovations

An important aspect of social change in agricultural organization is the relative willingness to adopt improved stocks, facilities, and practices. A series of types or semistatus roles has identified agriculturists relative to their time and manner of adopting new practices once these are made available. In the industrialized West only 3 per cent are “innovators” who are frequently linked directly to agricultural scientists whom they know personally. They evaluate science highly, do much of their own cognitive mapping in accordance with the canons of science, consider profits in agriculture as a most important goal, and take risks to attain this goal by borrowing money. Innovators make decisions and act upon them more quickly than others. In terms of systemic linkage, innovators are not linked to their neighborhoods as closely as others, are more cosmopolitan in orientation, and, although relatively well off financially, usually do not rank as high in local neighborhood affairs as do the next group to adopt practices, namely the “early adopters.” These latter may constitute something like 14 per cent of the agricultural producers. Early adopters and the next group—“early majority adopters”—may constitute together more than 35 per cent of the agricultural producers. They are linked both to the local neighborhood and community groups and to the knowledge centers, such as universities and experiment stations. The last groups to adopt improved stocks and practices have been called the “laggards” and “late adopters”; they evaluate science less highly than do earlier adopters (see Rogers 1962).

The case of an effective and generally adopted weed killer may serve as an example of differential adoption rates; it was adopted almost as soon as it was available by the innovators, whereas it was adopted after a ten-year delay by the laggards (North Central … 1961, p. 6). Laggards confine their interaction almost completely to their neighborhoods and localities, have a minimum of systemic linkage with knowledge centers, have relatively low rank, and are usually older and less well educated than innovators and early adopters. Laggards and late adopters engage frequently in a type of cognitive mapping akin to magic, such as the effect of the moon on seed germination. They tend to seek evaluations and reinforce their own judgments by asking the opinion of friends and neighbors. The end for which farming is conducted for the laggards is often “farming as a way of life,” in contrast to the profit motive, which is a highly valued end for the innovator. Usually the norms for agriculture and for life are highly traditional. Various studies in underdeveloped agricultural societies indicate that, in the above respects, the majority of peasants and laborers resemble the laggards and late adopters. One of the prime problems in the effort to increase the productivity of areas of traditional agriculture is to increase the proportion of innovators and early adopters [see Diffusion, article onthe diffusion of innovations].

Agriculture and society

As agricultural production becomes more efficient and markets and credit facilities more accessible, cities become larger, with the urban increase accruing largely from rural populations, which almost always have higher replacement rates. It has been suggested that high mobility is the chief differentiating feature of urbanized and developing societies. However, the movement of people is not always from the farms to the cities. During the depression of the 1930s a great “back to the land movement” began throughout the urbanized world, and in both Europe and America various forms of settlement designed to combine a home garden or subsistence with city wage work were established. This phenomenon throws in relief some of the fundamental patterns involved in the development of modern differentiated and industrialized societies.

Throughout history man has dreamed of establishing communities that are organized and designed to eliminate human conflict, poverty, and ignorance. Although such blights are often found in agricultural societies, the differentiated, industrialized urban societies generally manifest higher suicide rates, more anomie, and more alienation of man from man than do rural societies. Although it is the belief of many, including the author, that man’s flexible and rational nature, coupled with his ability to transmit knowledge, makes it possible for him to develop organizational techniques suited to conditions in which the division of labor and institutional differentiation dominate, many thinkers disagree. They believe an urban existence is un-natural and dysfunctional for mental and physical well-being. Such thinking is sometimes based upon the following facts and logic. Rural societies, particularly those not linked to modern industrialized cities, are less differentiated and more integrated, in the sense that their members fill fewer conflicting status roles (for example, the policeman who is a neighbor of a habitual delinquent) and manifest greater consensus on the goals and norms that guide life. Moreover, fewer members find existing institutions so meaningless that identity is sought with deviant groups, especially those that take pride in and flaunt their deviancy, as is fairly common in Western industrial society.

To understand the variation among agricultural organizations and rural societies, it may be helpful to visualize the “perfectly integrated society”: the quintessence of societal integration that has no empirical existence but may be projected as an ideal type (see Williams [1951] 1960, pp. 374, 378). It would be small in size, stable in demographic composition and in physical milieu, with relatively few linkages with other societies. It would have few “center activities,” whereby man refines and converts for his final use the products of “field activities,” such as agriculture, mining, lumbering, and herding. In a perfectly integrated society, there is complete consensus on goals and unwavering dedication to the norms of goal fulfillment. People find it a pleasure to do their duty, and spontaneous approval is given to all who do so. In such a society, there would, of course, be no need for social control and no police force or other sanctioning agency.

The impact of urbanization

Factors of differentiation, however, have emerged very early, as recorded history demonstrates. Simple agricultural societies, which are subject to the vicissitudes of flood, drought, and other natural calamities, employ religious rituals, especially at planting and harvest time. The keepers of such rituals—the holy men and the medicine men—not only supply through their activities much needed integration but also frequently specify planting stocks and times and probably become the first agricultural as well as religious experts. Thus, integration becomes increasingly difficult to achieve as status roles become differentiated not only in agriculture and religion but also in many other spheres, such as health, education, and government. “Center activities” become more numerous and important. As societies have become industrialized and urbanized, many variations have been observed, but some similarities and patterns may be mentioned.

First, power or control, even during periods when an agriculturally based nobility rules, comes to be highly concentrated in the urban centers. Moreover, societal integration and boundary maintenance are limited when these centers are few and weak. This is the chief reason why in modern times the spread of communism, contrary to Marx’s prediction that it would be introduced by the city proletarian masses, has been most prominent in peasant societies with weak central activities and government. The rank of various incumbents of status roles in the systems located in the field decreases as urbanization places greater emphasis upon center activities. These differences in rank are determined not so much by the difficulty of learning the skills demanded by the new status roles (it is probably more difficult to learn to train and use oxen and horses as draft animals than it is to operate an elevator in a hotel, for instance) as they are by the fact that the higher replacement rates of families that teach these skills to their children, as well as the lower demand for rural skills, generally disparages field activities. Because of available financial support, most able professionals tend to gravitate to the larger centers, whereas fewer elect to practice in rural areas; thus, there are fewer highly trained specialists (per ten thousand people), such as doctors and dentists, in rural than in urban areas.

Those engaged in center activities over several generations less frequently participate in conservative and reactionary movements and more frequently participate in liberal and radical movements than those engaged in field activities. It is often found that in urban areas the ultraconservatives and reactionaries frequently have recently come from the areas where field activities predominate. This in part explains the emphasis in such ultraconservative or reactionary movements as those of the German Nazis on returning agriculture to its earlier forms.

Those engaged in field activities have higher demographic replacement rates than those engaged in center activities. As centers emerge, the migration results in larger proportions of females and persons of employable age in the areas where center activities predominate. On the other hand, areas in which field activities predominate have larger proportions of males and persons in the younger and older less productive ages. Finally, urbanization—especially rapid urbanization—produces strains that are reflected in increasing rates of suicide and certain forms of criminality, such as homicide. However, when urbanization is in advanced stages and urban traits are being rapidly diffused to the countryside suicide rates of rural areas may sometimes, if only rarely, exceed urban rates.

Charles P. Loomis

[Directly related are the entriesCommunity–society continua; rural society. Other relevant material may be found inFood, article onworld problems; Peasantry; Technical assistance; and in the biographies ofMaine; TÖnnies.]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boissonade, Prosper (1921) 1964 Life and Work in Medieval Europe: The Evolution of Medieval EconomyFrom the Fifth to the Fifteenth Century. New York: Harper. → First published as Le travail dans I’Europe chrétienne au moyen âge.

Dietze, C. von 1933 Peasantry. Volume 12, pages 48–53 in Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences. New York: Macmillan.

Fustel de coulanges, numa denis (1864) 1956 The Ancient City: A Study on the Religion, Laws, and Institutions of Greece and Rome. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. → First published in French.

Loomis, Charles P. 1960 Social Systems: Essays on Their Persistence and Change. Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand.

Loomis, Charles P.; and BEEGLE, J. ALLAN (1950) 1955 Rural Social Systems: A Textbook in Rural Sociology and Anthropology. London: Bailey & Swinfen. → See sections on land tenure for a comprehensive bibliography.

Maine, Henry J. S. (1861) 1960 Ancient Law: Its Connection With the Early History of Society, and Its Relations to Modern Ideas. Rev. ed. New York: Dutton; London and Toronto: Dent. → A paperback edition was published in 1963 by Beacon.

North Central Rural Sociology Subcommittee for the Study of Diffusion of Farm Practices 1961 Adopters of New Farm Ideas: Characteristics and Communication Behavior. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan Agricultural Extension Service, East Lansing.

Rogers, Everett M. 1962 Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.

TÖnnies, Ferdinand (1887) 1957 Community and Society (Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft). Translated and edited by Charles P. Loomis. East Lansing: Michigan State Univ. Press. → First published in German. A paperback edition was published in 1963 by Harper.

Vinogradoff, Paul (1905) 1920 The Growth of the Manor. 3d ed. New York: Macmillan.

Williams, Robin M. JR. (1951) 1960 American Society: A Sociological Interpretation. 2d ed., rev. New York: Knopf.

III HISTORY

We now know that the historian’s desire to set in order and tighten the history of agriculture must not go so far as to dissolve the diversity of events into a single trend of evolution or even into a “law,” as did the writers of antiquity with their rigorous sequence of nomadism developing from hunting and fishing and agriculture from nomadism or as did the historians of the nineteenth century, who held that communal ownership was a necessary phase in the evolution of society (de Laveleye 1874; von Below 1920).

Much archeological evidence, including that from recently developed techniques of aerial photography and research on organic remains, indicates that hunting, fishing, and food gathering persisted side by side with simple cultivation during long periods of prehistory. Similar evidence, particularly from implements and aerial photography, discloses early field arrangements throughout Europe that give no appearance of having been farmed in common. [For fuller treatment of the origins and early history of agriculture, see Domestication; Urban Revolution.]

With the development of advanced civilizations in the Near East there came new plants, new implements, new techniques (irrigation, fertilizer, regular succession of crops), and new forms of organization of agriculture (latifundia, slave plantations). These innovations reached the countries north of the Alps via Greece and Rome, although many of them vanished again with the Romans.

Europe’s population, however, had reached a low point at about the middle of the first millennium A.D. It is estimated that no more than four million people (about four per square kilometer) then lived in the area today occupied by England, France, and the Federal Republic of Germany. This in turn meant wide-open stretches for man and animal, little agriculture, emphasis on animal husbandry, and widely scattered settlements.

The medieval expansion

The middle of the first millennium may be regarded as the turning point at which a new expansion set in, an expansion that has continued with reverses and interruptions to the present day. Starting in the sixth and seventh centuries and expanding after the year 1000, forests were cleared, marshes drained, and land along the coasts reclaimed from the sea. The higher elevations were opened up in the lower mountain ranges; the upper limit of permanent settlement in the Alps was higher about the year 1300 than ever before or since. By the time this wave of land expansion subsided (at the beginning of the fourteenth century) the arable land of the old Europe had been increased many times over.

Most of the villages still in existence in central Europe existed at the end of the medieval expansion of cultivated land. Only few inhabited places have been added since, while many have disappeared since the high Middle Ages. For example, it is estimated that about the year 1300 there were some 170,000 independent—that is, territorially separate—settlements in Germany (within the confines of the Germany of 1933). Since there were no more than about 140,000 localities there in 1933, and since several thousand of these were founded in modern times, we may assume that every fifth inhabited place disappeared during the late Middle Ages—i.e., in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries—and was never re-established.

As large numbers of such deserted villages likewise appeared in the Scandinavian countries and in England, France, and Poland in the late Middle Ages (although in those countries they were reestablished more often than was the case in Germany), we must look for explanations that enable us to comprehend the accumulation of deserted

villages in the late Middle Ages as a universal European phenomenon. The falling population in Europe of the late Middle Ages affords one explanation. The population of central Europe dropped perhaps as early as the great famine of 1307–1317, but certainly during the bubonic plague (the Black Death) of 1348–1350, which came out of the Orient and swept over Europe; and it remained low, for the first wave of the plague was followed by others. The depopulation was followed by migrations. The peasants abandoned the settlements in inaccessible and elevated localities (Norway, the Alps), on infertile soil, or in perilous social circumstances. They migrated into the valleys—to a more productive agriculture or a smaller burden—or else into the towns. The naturalization lists of many towns in the late Middle Ages, and sometimes the very names of those naturalized (which reveal their origins), are evidence of this flight from the land in the late Middle Ages.

Economic conditions must also be acknowledged as a causative factor in the movement from the countryside to the city. During the late Middle Ages the prices of agricultural products fell; the prices of craft products and wages were much steadier (Figure 1). Unskilled laborers often received the counterpart of 20 to 30 kilograms of grain as their day’s wages. This, too, was a consequence of the decreased population, and although the peasants did not comprehend these relationships, they saw that work was easier, life was safer, and burdens were lighter in the towns than on the land. Therefore they migrated to the city, and when they were no longer able to do so, they sent their sons to the townsfolk—as reported in a Prussian source, “to serve or to learn a trade.”

Field arrangements

When the period of deserting the villages came to an end, clearing and settling were resumed, and the manorial system that had come down from the Middle Ages was extended still further. Over large areas of central Europe this was the three-field or multifield economy, with common pasturage and the open-field system.

For a long time it was thought that these field arrangements were linked to the taking over of land during the barbarian invasions. It was believed that the initial settlers had occupied the land in common and divided it into farmstead land, arable land, and meadows, with the arable land divided into larger plots and these plots subdivided into strips, each family then being allocated several strips. This implied that the strip farming of the fields and the broad parceling out of the strips with regular crop rotation had existed “from the very outset,” a notion that had to be abandoned. The village with “open fields” (Gewanndorf) had precursors from which its subsequent form, which has come down to us, evolved through expansion, alteration, and reconstruction.

Expansion signifies the gradual growth of arable land by the extension of clearing. In many cases the later fields can be distinguished from the earlier ones by their names, their location with respect to the village, and their shape; and even today we can perceive the original fields, to which usually only a few farmsteads were attached. As the number of peasant families increased the area of arable land had to be expended. If enough waste land and woodland were available, the arable land could be extended by clearing from the village as a center. Since this work of clearing, especially in the bush and forest, could rarely be handled by a single peasant family, it is easy to understand the parceling out of the newly cleared land. It reflected the individual’s share in the work done in common. The expansion theory explains the gradual growth of arable land, although it does not explain the combining of parcels and strips into large fields, which were cultivated according to strict rules in the old villages.

The alteration theory proposes to explain the origin of this utilization of the arable land in common. It depicts conditions that might well have necessitated a transition from a more individual to a more cooperative economy, perhaps in the following manner. As the populations increased, real properties began to be subdivided; fields were cut up into irregular shapes and locations. This gave rise to the “medley” of pieces of land, which compelled cooperation. Crossings had to be regulated, water rights settled, and cultivation plans attuned to one another. The sown fields also had to be fenced in to protect them from grazing cattle, shepherds had to be appointed, and other arrangements made that could be effected only in agreement with neighbors. This promoted a constant association of the joint proprietors of a field, as well as the arising of a collective consciousness that facilitated renunciation of individual rights, no longer so useful.

We cannot say with certainty when this took place. The origins of these utilizations in common of arable land probably go far back in time. Tacitus describes conditions that might be interpreted as such commons, but these are probably attributable to special circumstances, such as migrations or states of war. It is unlikely that most of the common utilizations of land originated much earlier than the expansion period of the high Middle Ages, and many new villages in the formerly Slavic East were founded in the same period (eleventh to thirteenth centuries). The system of strip farming, which had proved its worth, was transferred to these commons. Field areas were demarcated according to soil quality and distance from the village. On the resulting scattered holdings all the peasants were treated as equitably as possible and moreover were equally affected by wet weather, rain, or hail, a situation that diminished individual risk.

Recent research has shown, however, that a large-field economy had by no means gained as much ground in the high Middle Ages as had previously been assumed, even where it subsequently became the rule. Here we are aided by the reconstruction theory. This theory makes allowance for the period of deserted villages. Once the villages had decayed, the fields had gone to weeds, and property rights had been obscured, planning, distribution, and rearrangement could be effected as in virgin territory. Parcels could be laid out and strips staked out and assembled into large fields without disturbing older rights. Here and there the old field boundaries remained, but as a rule they disappeared on cultivated land. Then, and in many instances only at the beginning of modern times, did the dominant picture become that of the large-field economy of a group of peasants joined in a working association.

Yet a countermovement developed at an early date, leading from the (relative) collective to greater individuation of property and usufruct rights. In England, enclosures, the fencing of sections of fields and forests for individual use, began as early as the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. In the sixteenth century the peasants of the bishopric of Kempten in Allgäu began to dissolve their villages and common lands and to shift their farmsteads to the former common lands. The north European nobility began to withdraw their fields from the village common lands in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and this trend became stronger in the nineteenth century. Yet the elimination of farming strips, which began thus—with or without the initial disintegration of the villages —remains even today one of the major tasks of agrarian policy in many European countries.

Social arrangements

The little settlements and balk-enclosed fields uncovered by the spade and revealed by genetic research on arable land are evidence of a peasantry that was organized in tiny groups around house and family. Their arable land was sufficient to be cultivated by and to support the inhabitants of the house. Over and above all regional peculiarities, the shape of the Carolingian mansus, the Danish bool, the English hide, the Breton ran, and the German Hufe all bore the stamp of the terra familiae thus delimited and established.

This does not exclude social differentiation. Greater economic power and prominent social status were not lacking even in earliest times, although it was only with the increasing density of population and with the increasing shortage of land that the phase of social differentiation and integration that produced the social pattern of the Middle Ages began.

The central factor was territorial dominion. It set up a relationship to the soil. As long as land was available in abundance, man was the more valuable property and villenage the adequate form of dominion. As land became scarce, rights and obligations could be linked to its transfer. This is what happened in many countries; a rather uniform form of territorial dominion resulted, notwithstanding many differences in detail. The core of such dominion was the manor. This was the seat of the manorial administrators (steward, villicus) who collected dues from the peasants and were overseers of the services the peasants had to perform on the land belonging to the lord of the manor (the terra salica). Most of the land was parceled out to the peasants, who constituted an association subject to manorial law. Manorial law governed their rights and obligations and also subjected the lord’s claims to the verdict of a manorial court, on which the peasants also sat and had a vote as long as the ancient peasant freedoms lingered.

About a.d. 1000 the large landed estates of the kings, the church, and the counts that had characterized the era of the Franks were succeeded by small landed estates. The villicus, who had been a farmer, was succeeded by the manorial feudal knight, who followed the profession of arms and hunting, and pleasures of chivalry, losing interest in his private property. Many of the manors were dissolved or transformed. Rents became important. In some parts of Europe this process went so far that hardly anything more of the old manorial associations than a sheaf of rent rights and rent obligations survived. Elsewhere leaseholdlike conditions evolved, leading in some places to exclusive ownership by the lord of the manor (England) and in others to the peasants’ sole ownership (northwest Germany, Denmark, and Scandinavia). We cannot trace these details in this article, but we do have to point out a special formation that arose in east Germany and the adjacent Slavic lands. In these areas a new structure, the so-called Gutsherrschaft (manorial domain), grew out of the Grundherrschaft (landed estate).

During the period of settlement peasants and knights, still only little differentiated socially and economically, cultivated side by side the land in east Germany. When many peasant farms were deserted in eastern Europe during the late fourteenth and the fifteenth centuries, the knights annexed to their own estates the land thus left vacant. This involved little change in the economy at first, since no markets were available. Only in the sixteenth century, as the population began to increase again, did markets improve. Prices of agricultural products rose, and the markets in the West were opened up to the products of east European agriculture. By the end of the sixteenth century Danzig alone exported as much as 130,000 metric tons of grain annually.

The rising real prices of agricultural products formed the economic background for the expansion of large grain farms in the East (Figure 2). And there were other factors. The rise of mercenary armies relieved the knights of the obligation of military service. Once their military function vanished they were freed for the tasks of agriculture. The weakness of the central power (the state) was another important factor. It resulted in the transfer of major sovereign rights, such as the rights of judicature, taxation, and corvée labor for

public works, to the knights and landowners. This made possible the confiscation of much peasant ownership (Bauernlegen), which contributed in no small degree to the expansion of estate size during the periods of agricultural boom, particularly around 1600 and again around 1800.

At the same time the peasants’ property rights were impaired. Hereditary, little encumbered property became the exception, nonhereditary property the rule. The peasants, with wife and children, were forced to do corvée labor, manual haulage with teams of draft animals; as servants they were bound to the soil and became subjects of their lord.

The emancipation of the peasants (Bauernbefreiungen) eliminated landed estates and manorial domains, thus releasing forces that, together with the industrial and technical advances of the nineteenth century, initiated a new phase in agriculture. [For further discussion of these aspects of medieval agriculture, see Manorial economy.]

Agriculture and the economy

An endeavor to place agriculture within the framework of general economic development may begin with the theories advanced by the classical economists around the turn of the eighteenth century. Malthus proclaimed that population always tends to increase faster than the foodstuffs available. Ricardo added that the condition of the workers grows steadily worse over-all, while that of the landlords constantly improves.

When we compare prices and wages in the fifteenth century with those at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the historical data appear fully

**Table 1 — Price and wage movements in the agrarian period: Indices at* 1801–1850 based on 1401–1450 = 100***
England		Germany
Source: Abel (1935) 1966.
Wheat	563	Rye	378
Wages	310	Iron	173
Iron	104	Wages	149

to confirm the theorists’ assertions (see Table 1). In addition, grain prices rose absolutely as well as relatively to the prices of handicraft products. Land rents, measured, say, in rentals for unemcumbered plots of land, rose even more. Wages lagged behind. Around 1800 a Berlin mason, for example, earned hardly more than the equivalent of 7 kg. of rye per day. How he fed, clothed, and housed himself and his family on such an income remains a mystery.

The theorists had less success with their predictions of the future. Population continued to grow in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but the living standard of the masses improved. Wages rose much faster than the prices of grain or iron (see Table 2). We find a break in price, wage, and rent trends at the threshold of the industrial era.

*Table 2 — Price and wage movements in the industrial period: Indices at 1951–1960 based on 1801–1850 = 100*
England		Germany
Source: Abel (1935) 1966.
Wages	995	Wages	1,216
Iron	201	Rye	286
Wheat	111	Iron	200

There is analogous evidence in the narrower field of agriculture. During the initial period farming took precedence over livestock raising, for, as Adam Smith pointed out, a corn field of moderate fertility produces much more food for man than the best pasture of the same size. During the following period field crops were also placed in the service of livestock raising. Meat consumption fluctuated similarly, sinking from far above 100 kg. per capita per annum in the fifteenth century in Germany to about 14 kg. per capita per annum around 1800, after which it began to rise again. Thus, there have been two clearly distinct phases or periods in the history of European agriculture and food supply since the high Middle Ages.

Still, this break indicates only part of what actually happened. The watershed dates can be derived from the statistical data only by omitting the intervening data (as in Tables 1 and 2). The predominating, or at least the more obvious, trend in the statistical series of agricultural production, prices, income, and foodstuff consumption was not a continuous rise or fall, but rather a repetitive (pulsating) oscillation, in turn made up of several superimposed cycles.

Secular cycles. When we employ appropriate statistical methods to eliminate the short-term and mediumterm grain-price fluctuations, we find secular cycles, which can be traced back into the Middle Ages in northern Italy, France, England, Germany, and Austria (Figure 3). Ever since Jean Bodin, in 1568, termed the surplus of precious metals the most important and almost sole cause of the rise of prices, we have tended to look to money for the causes of such long-term price changes. Yet prices varied with respect to one another and to wages, both during the upward and the downward general price trends, and these relative changes cannot be explained by the simple quantity theory of money. They point back to the change in population, which paralleled the change in grain prices in central Europe and has been inversely proportional to the change in real wages ever since the late Middle Ages. This is true not only of the Middle Ages but also of modern times. Population rose sharply in all the countries of central Europe during the sixteenth century and through the beginning of the seventeenth century, after which this increase came to a halt. Population began to rise once more only after about the middle of the eighteenth century, a trend that is even more pronounced today.

The effects of population trends cannot be separated from the effects of the price–wage ratio, since both exhibit the same trend as far as agriculture is concerned. All we can say is that agricultural output and agricultural income paralleled population and price changes.

This is true, first of all, of agricultural acreage. The period of clearing in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries was followed by the period of deserted villages in the late Middle Ages. The price rise of the sixteenth century was accompanied by a second wave of farmland expansion. A third wave set in during the eighteenth century (even earlier in Germany, where it occurred soon after the end of the Thirty Years’ War), again resulting in a substantial increase in farm acreage.

Second, the secular cycles of grain price changes were accompanied by changes in the intensity of agriculture. No matter where we look, at the development of operating technology, yields, expenditures, or the systems of farm management, the decisive advances took place during the periods of

* Wheat prices used for France, England, and northern Italy; rye prices used for Germany and Austria.

long-term price rises. The periods of falling agricultural prices, i.e., the close of the Middle Ages and the decades after the Thirty Years’ War, were associated with extensive farming (e.g., the increase in sheepraising in England during the late Middle Ages at the expense of grain farming) or stagnation in the evolution of agriculture.

Third, the secular price fluctuations were associated with changes in agricultural income. This applies above all (in fact, by definition) to those shares of agricultural income that are to be allocated to the soil as a unique factor of production, that is, to the rent of Ricardo’s theory. It also applies, however, even if in a somewhat qualified way, to the stipulated dues and services of an economic order that conceded influence upon income distribution to authority as well as to the market, i.e., to the “feudal rent charges” of the incipient trading economy. Last, it also applies to peasant income, which usually consisted of wages and rent, but which actually tended to follow rent even on farms of moderate size as soon as wages and rent began to diverge.

Short-term fluctuations. Shorter-term fluctuations were embedded in the secular cycles. They were caused by crop fluctuations, wars, stagnation of trade, and other events, but it should be borne in mind that the effects of even these short-term fluctuations were substantially affected by the longterm changes in prices and income and by the underlying man–land ratio. (For instance, the devastating consequences of the great famine of 1307–1317 can be explained only in association with the long-term shortage of land during the high Middle Ages.) Thus abundant harvests during periods of secular depression in agriculture often brought about what may be termed agrarian crises comparable to recent phenomena of a similar nature. Yet, in addition to the factors in common (often underestimated in the past), the differences between the early and later marketing crises of agriculture are also significant. To begin with, the

interdependence of market and agriculture increased and with it the territorial and functional scope of the crises; second, the secular cycles of grain prices broke down during the nineteenth century into cycles that were still “long” but which were much shorter than before (Figure 4); and third, the causes of these secular fluctuations and hence the causes of more recent agrarian crises (around 1820, 1890, 1930) were quite different from those of previous depressions. The earlier crises occurred in an era of halting population growth or even of decreasing population, while the agrarian crises of the nineteenth century and even of the twentieth century coincided with a marked population increase.

Insofar as ultimate causes can be cited, they must be sought in the participation of agriculture in the powerful expansionist drive that has been manifested ever since the technical and social revolutions of the end of the eighteenth century. Theodore W. Schultz came to the same conclusion (1945, p. 45). Schultz thought that “three sets of circumstances are possible in the rate of growth in the demand and the supply of farm products: (a) an equal increase in both demand and supply; (b) an unequal expansion, in which demand pushes hard against supply; (c) an unequal expansion, in which supply outdistances demand.” He did not discuss the first situation, because it is of no theoretical or historical interest. The second, “with demand for farm products pushing hard against the supply (the state of affairs now present in China and India) … worried Malthus, Ricardo, and their contemporaries. The third condition, where the supply of farm products increases so fast that it presses hard against the demand, is the one that has in fact (since Malthus and Ricardo) occurred.” This is a simple, but quite accurate, formula for making a distinction between the two periods we find in the history of Western agriculture since the high Middle Ages.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

books

Abel, Wilhelm (1935) 1966 Agrarkrisen und Agrarkonjunktur: Eine Geschichte der Land- und Ernährungswirtschaft Mitteleuropas seit dem hohen Mittelalter. 2d ed., enl. Hamburg (Germany): Parey.

Abel, Wilhelm (1943) 1955 Die Wüstungen des ausgehenden Mittelalters. 2d ed. Quellen und Forschungen zur Agrargeschichte, 1. Stuttgart (Germany): Fischer.

L’agriculture à travers les âges, histoire des faits, des institutions, de la pensée et des doctrines économiques et sociales. 5 vols. 1935–1965 Paris: De Boccard. → See especially Volume 2: Première période de Hammourabi à la fin de l’empire romain, by E. Savoy, 1935. Volume 3: L’agriculture au moyen âge de la fin de l’empire romain au XVI^e siècle, by R. Grand and R. Delatouche, 1950. Volume 4: L’agriculture du XVII^e siècle à la fin du XVIII^e, by E. Soreau, 1952.

Below, Georg von (1920) 1926 Probleme der Wirtschaftsgeschichte: Eine Einführung in das Studium der Wirtschaftsgeschichte. 2d ed. Tübingen (Germany): Mohr.

Cambridge Economic History of Europe. Volume 1: The Agrarian Life of the Middle Ages. Edited by T. H. Clapham and Eileen Power. 1941 Cambridge Univ. Press.

Duby, Georges 1962 L’économic rurale et la vie des campagnes dans l’occident médiéval France, Angleterre, Empire, IX^e-XV^e siècles: Essai de synthèse et perspectives de recherches. 2 vols. Paris: Aubier.

Laveleye, Émile de (1874) 1901 De la propriété et de ses formes primitives. 5th ed. Paris: Alcan.

Meitzen, August 1895 Siedlung und Agrarwesen der Westgermanen und Ostgermanen, der Kelten, Römer, Finen und Slawen. 3 vols. and Atlas. Berlin: Hertz.

Schultz, Theodore W. 1945 Agriculture in an Unstable Economy. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Slicher van Bath, Bernhard H. (1960) 1963 The Agrarian History of Western Europe, a.d. 500–1850. London: Arnold. → First published as De agrarische Geschiedenis van West-Europa, 500–1850.

periodicals

Agricultural History. → Published since 1927 by the Agricultural History Society.

Agricultural History Review. → Published since 1953 by the British Agricultural History Society.

Annales: Économies, sociétés, civilisations. → Published since 1946. Supersedes Annales d’histoire sociale, Vols. 1–3 (1939–1941), which superseded Annales d’histoire économique et sociale, Vols. 1–10 published between 1929 and 1938.

Rivista di storia dell’ agricoltura. → Published since 1961 by the Istituto di Tecnica e Propaganda Agraria.

Zeitschrift für Agrargeschichte und Agrarsoziologie. → Published since 1953.

IV PRODUCTION

Until some yet unanticipated chemical revolution occurs, the production of food, fiber, and related products will remain an economic activity essential to the continued survival of man on this planet. Anthropologists have found civilizations or groups that did not travel, exchange goods, or manufacture. They have not, however, reported groups that did not eat, and the civilizations that have not used some method of protecting the human body from the elements have been few. Thus, the economic activity embraced in agricultural production has as its primary purpose the meeting of the physiological needs of man, although in most economies agricultural production involves products that go beyond meeting these needs.

Until a society has met its basic needs for food and fiber its economic activity is directed to little else. In a wealthy or advanced economy the production of food and fiber constitutes a small fraction of its total economic output and often an even smaller fraction of its total consumption. Even so, the importance of agricultural production should not be underestimated and an understanding of the nature of the economic activity involved should not be neglected.

Definition and measurement

The problem of defining agricultural production involves defining both “agricultural” and “production.” Agricultural production as used in this discussion will include the growing and/or harvesting of food and fiber products grown for legal human consumption. Thus, economic activities that may take place within the unit producing an agricultural product, but that occur after harvest, such as processing, curing, or marketing, generally are not considered production. It should be noted that products not classified as either food or fiber—such as flowers, tobacco, and industrial oilseeds—are also usually included as agricultural production. Such products as natural rubber and forest products are often classified as agricultural production.

Agricultural production usually means the production of a product via a biological process: the idea of growing is involved. Even if growth takes place entirely removed from natural processes or the earth, as in modern-day broiler and egg production, it is still classified as agricultural production.

Defining agricultural production is a relatively simple problem; measuring agricultural production is not so simple, and the results are somewhat inexact, even in advanced economies. One problem is the avoidance of double counting in determining agricultural production; another is not counting very large parts of the production that actually occurs.

The problem of double counting occurs because many agricultural products are not consumed directly by humans but are used as intermediate products in other agricultural production. In some countries much of the crop acreage is devoted to the production of forage and feed grains that in turn are fed to livestock: the livestock is eventually used for human consumption. In many parts of the world the farm power is supplied by animals, and much of the crop production is to provide food for these animals which in turn are used to produce food for human consumption. If we are to avoid double counting we cannot count total crop production and total livestock production as net product. It is necessary to deduct that portion of crop and livestock production used for farm power arid that portion of crop production used to produce livestock output. If this deduction can be accurately made, the resulting measurement consists of net farm output destined for human consumption. It should be recognized, however, that even in wealthy countries with good statistical measures of gross crop and livestock output the deductions are only approximations. In countries with poor statistical estimating methods, the estimates are only gross approximations—if they are made at all.

The second problem in measuring agricultural production is that of accounting for much of the production in subsistence agriculture. In parts of the world up to 80 per cent or more of the population live by primitive agricultural production that is primarily for personal or family consumption. Little, if any, of the product that is produced is sold outside the family or the village, unless there is a surplus above family or local wants. In such areas of the world the population estimates carry wide margins of error, and estimates of production and consumption in such areas have an even wider margin of error. One of the reasons that some areas have shown notable increases in agricultural production in the early stages of economic development may be that for the first time production that was previously unmeasured is caught in the newly developing market economy or by improved statistical measurements.

Thus, in using statistics relating to agricultural production one should view them with more caution than is sometimes exhibited. In the wealthy noncommunist countries the statistics generally are reasonably accurate and complete. In the underdeveloped countries wide margins of error are frequent in statistics relating to agricultural production. In some countries the usual margins of error are compounded by national policy deliberately designed to mislead observers regarding actual production, so that such statistics on agricultural production may be of little value.

Types of organization

Agricultural production has been organized in several different ways in different parts of the world and at different periods of time. These various forms of organization have had significant effects upon the rates of change and growth in productivity in agriculture and, in some cases, upon the entire society in which they existed.

It should be recognized that in most respects the different types of organization of agricultural production are not distinct and clear-cut. Classifications of types of organization are in part a function of the economic system in which they are found. Units that would be classified as low-production or subsistence farms in the United States might be classified as medium or large-scale farms in other agricultural economies.

For purposes of classification it is useful to consider four elements: (1) the quantity of resources involved in the production unit; (2) the proportions of those resources (land, labor, and capital) involved in a typical production unit; (3) who has the power to decide how the resources of the production unit are used; and (4) the extent to which such economic factors as product and resource prices determine the way in which the resources of the production unit are used.

Subsistence. Probably the largest in numbers of persons involved, if not in production, is the subsistence agricultural production typical of many of the underdeveloped areas of the world. Subsistence agriculture is often organized around tribal or village groups, with members of the village engaging in agricultural production in the areas adjacent to the village. This organization is marked by a low ratio of land per worker and the almost complete absence of capital goods. Production processes are heavily influenced by custom, superstition, and long-standing experience. Not only is the individual producer capital scarce but community capital in the form of roads, irrigation, communication, and transportation is often absent. In such areas neither the market for products nor the market for productive factors is well developed, so that the usual economic forces of prices and incomes may produce less response than is typically expected in a production process. Thus, much of the subsistence agricultural production in the world is primarily for consumption by the members of the family producing it, although some of its products do move into market systems, both local and international.

Plantation. In those economies where subsistence agriculture is found there is often another form of economic organization of agricultural production—plantation agriculture. Its economic organization contrasts sharply with that of subsistence agriculture: typically, it is entirely market oriented, selling its products in national and international markets. In fact, agricultural production from such organizations often is the major source of foreign exchange for underdeveloped countries. The economic organization of plantation agriculture frequently involves large capital investment, often from foreign sources. The ratio of land and capital to labor in production is higher than in subsistence agriculture. The labor supply for plantation agriculture usually is local, with payment in wages or goods rather than by sharing in the returns. The technical production processes are centrally determined by the managers. Quite often the auxiliary services necessary to the specific production and marketing of the particular commodity involved are highly developed, in striking contrast to similar developments for the rest of the agricultural economy concerned. [See Plantations.]

Hacienda. Another form of economic organization of agriculture is that of the hacienda, found in Latin America. These organizations are privately owned, with the owners generally living elsewhere. Unlike plantations, haciendas usually do not involve high capital investments and modern technical methods. In fact, much of the problem of inadequate agricultural production in many Latin American countries can be attributed to the lack of intensive use of some of the most productive land—which is generally on haciendas. Haciendas are typically used for livestock grazing and cereal crop production, involving low capital and labor inputs per unit of land. The labor used in such production receives little pay and has little or no incentive to adopt new technologies. Almost all observers agree that this system of agriculture is relatively inefficient at both the individual firm and national levels, but since land ownership and political power are closely related there is little incentive to change unless change is forced by outside events.

Large-scale production with collective ownership. Another form of organization of agricultural production is found in the large-scale farms that dominate agriculture in the Soviet Union and some other eastern European countries. These are state or collective farms. In some other areas, notably Israel, agricultural production is organized along similar lines, but the farms are cooperative in structure. The capital for this type of large-scale agricultural production is public capital, not owned or controlled by those who actually produce the farm products. In general, large quantities of capital are involved, in the form of both land and machinery. Such farms are primarily for the purpose of producing for nonfarm consumption and are usually heavily dependent upon nonfarm-produced goods for productive inputs. Even in the communist countries a price system is used as one of the methods of allocating productive resources to and within the agricultural sector. Moreover, some type of incentive system frequently is used in order to induce workers on the large-scale farms to increase output. Since these large-scale farms often are specialized in the production of field crops, workers on such farms often are allowed to maintain their own small plots or farms for the production of fruits, vegetables, and livestock products. Even in communist countries the agricultural workers usually are allowed to market some of the products from these private plots [see Communism, economic organization of, article onagriculture].

Large-scale production with private ownership. In the United States and other countries there are some large-scale agricultural production units which are privately owned; sometimes they are corporate in structure. They involve large capital inputs, use the most advanced technology, and often are highly efficient units of production. Such farms are almost totally dependent upon hired labor; the capital-to-man and land-to-man ratios are usually very high; and the management decisions are usually centralized, with the production specialized in one or a few products.

Large-scale organization of agriculture has proved to be less effective in the production of some livestock products than it is in the production of crops. One exception is the production of range livestock, for which large acreages of land can be used extensively without significant labor inputs. The difficulties of organizing large-scale units to produce livestock products appear to be the result of diseconomies in the areas of disease control and production management decisions that arise in livestock production. Large-scale agricultural production involves centralized decisions on technology and management, whereas almost constant contact between manager and product appears to be a prerequisite to most successful livestock production. However, technical breakthroughs in disease control have made large-scale agricultural production feasible for poultry products, and similar technical developments may make large-scale production units feasible for other livestock as well.

Small-scale production. Somewhat above the primitive subsistence agricultural production units described earlier are the small farms that are common in western Europe, Japan, parts of Latin America, and in the United States. Such farms may involve from one to ten or more acres, so that the ratio of land to labor is low. The capital input usually is low also, and the total output of the unit may not be high. Such farms produce in excess of family consumption needs; in fact, their production often is primarily for sale. However, the resources available are usually too few to employ profitably all of the available labor, so that the level of living of these farmers is low for the society in which they are found.

Medium-scale production. There are, finally, farms that are larger scale than those just discussed but that fall short of the large-scale farms in some continuum of size. This type of agricultural production typifies the agriculture of the United States and western Europe. It is marked by private ownership of the productive resources, with the ownership, management, and labor function carried out by a single family. This type of organization has come to be called the “family farm” in the United States, and its strengthening vis-à-vis other forms of economic organization of agricultural production has always been a major goal of U.S. farm policy.

Despite the rather modest size of these farms relative to the large-scale farms previously discussed, their capital-to-man ratio often tends to be high. This is because the response to technical and economic change in agricultural production in the United States and western Europe has been primarily to increase the capital used in conjunction with the labor of the farm operator and his family, thus enabling them to increase agricultural production substantially. Technical advances in agricultural production in the United States have not but rather to a reduction in the number of subled to a shift from small-scale to large-scale units sistence farms. In the United States these small-scale and medium-scale farms accounted for 70 per cent of total agricultural production in 1959, and their contribution to output actually has risen relative to that of large-scale farms over the past two decades.

These medium-scale and small-scale farms are organized to produce almost entirely for market consumption. They are increasingly dependent upon nonfarm-produced capital items and productive resources beyond the land and family labor. A market price system is the primary determinant of resource allocation to and within these producing units. Decision making about all phases of production is almost completely decentralized to the level of individual producers. Of course, such a system of economic organization requires an extensive public investment in education of the operator and family members, roads, market information, and other overhead services if it is to function effectively.

From historical performance, it appears that, based upon economic criteria, the decentralized medium-scale and small-scale production units in agriculture have excelled in their ability to produce farm products. Rates of growth in output and productivity on such farms have far exceeded those achieved by other types of economic organization of agricultural production. It is probably a mistake to say this superior performance is due to a “free” price system rather than to recognize that it is the result of a complex decentralized production system, heavily dependent on its outside auxiliary services, both private and public, to provide a constant flow of new methods of production and on managers able to absorb and apply these changes in a market economy.

The distribution of world production

Neither population nor agricultural production is distributed equally around the world, and foreign trade does not serve to cause consumption patterns to vary significantly from the population–production distribution. Table 1 shows the distribution of population, arable land, and agricultural production, as estimated by the United States Department of Agriculture in 1958.

*Table 1 — Distribution of world population, arable land, and agricultural production, by regions, 1958*
	Population	Arable land	Agricultural production
	(Per cent of world total)
a. Also North Korea, North Vietnam, and Mongolia.
b. Includes Pacific Islands.
Source: Adapted from U.S. Department of Agriculture [1961] 1962, p. 9, table 1.
United States	6.1	13.5	15.8
Canada	0.6	2.9	1.5
Australia and New Zealand	0.4	2.0	2.2
Western Europe	10.6	6.9	15.7
Eastern Europe	11.2	19.9	14.2
Mainland China^a	23.5	8.0	16.0
Japan^b	3.2	0.4	2.1
South, southeast Asia and other Far East	26.7	18.3	14.2
Latin America	6.7	7.3	9.1
Africa and Near East	11.0	20.8	9.2
*World*	100.0	100.0	100.0

The United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and western Europe had 17.7 per cent of the world’s population, contained 25.3 per cent of its arable land area, and, because of the advanced agricultural production techniques used, accounted for 35.2 per cent of the world’s agricultural production. At the other end of the scale the Far East

*Table 2 — Distribution of world population and food supplies, by regions, 1957–1959*
	PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION	PERCENTAGE OF FOOD SUPPLIES
		Total	Animal	Crops
Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 1963, p. 20, table.9
Europe	21.6	34.2	38.4	26.2
North America	6.6	21.8	29.2	10.4
Oceania	0.5	1.3	1.6	0.9
Far East, including mainland China	52.9	27.8	18.5	44.2
Near East	4.4	4.2	2.8	5.5
Africa	7.1	4.3	2.8	6.3
Latin America	6.9	6.4	6.7	6.5
World	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0

(omitting Japan) had one-half of the world’s population, 26 per cent of its arable land, and accounted for only 30 per cent of its agricultural production.

Total world agricultural production is highly skewed in favor of the developed countries, and trade does little to correct this imbalance. This is especially true for the more preferred products, the animal products, which are even less equally distributed in relation to population than is total agricultural production (Table 2). Europe and North America, with 28.2 per cent of the world’s population, consume 67.6 per cent of the food supplies coming from animal sources. Peasant or subsistence agriculture tends to be crop agriculture, for only after a relatively high income level is reached is it feasible to pay the cost, in terms of energy loss, that is involved in the conversion of crops to livestock products prior to their use for human consumption.

Thus, agricultural production relative to population is greatest in those areas where medium-scale and small-scale market-oriented agriculture, with decentralized decision-making units of production, predominates. In the Soviet Union and other communist countries, where large-scale agriculture is most common, private small-scale farms still are a major source of production of livestock and fruit and vegetable products. The inability of subsistence agriculture to provide an adequate base for economic growth has long been recognized and underlies the various attempts at the reorganization of agricultural production underway in almost every underdeveloped country.

Trends in agricultural production. Total agricultural production in the world has risen markedly in the two decades from pre-World War II to 1960 (Table 3). Despite many impressions to the contrary, agricultural production has risen at a more rapid rate than has population over the past two decades. World agricultural production per capita is reported to have risen about 12 per cent and the per capita production of food products about 14 per cent.

However, despite this encouraging trend in agricultural production, the trends in production and population growth have been adverse to the underdeveloped areas of the world (Table 4). North America, Europe, and Oceania have experienced huge increases in agricultural production, starting from a level that was already favorable relative to their population. As a result, the major agricultural problem in these areas has been the maintenance of income levels of agricultural producers in the face of increases of output of products with an inelastic demand. The less developed areas of the world have experienced almost the same percentage increases in production as the developed areas; but in most cases population growth has exceeded that of agricultural production, so that production per capita actually has declined from prewar levels. Thus, little or no gain has been

Table 3 — Indices of world agricultural production in relation to population, 1952/1953-1956/1957 average = 100*
	Prewar (average)	1948/1949-1952/1958 (average)	1953/1954-1957/1958 (average)	1958/1959	1959/1960	1960/1961	1961/1962 (Preliminary)
*The indices have been calculated by applying regional weights, based on 1952/1953-1956/1957 farm-price relationships, to the production figures, which are adjusted to allow for quantities used for feed and seed. The indices for food products exclude coffee, tea, tobacco, inedible oilseeds, animal and vegetable fibers, and rubber. Mainland China is excluded because of incomplete data.
Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Ntions 1962, P. 16, table 11-13
Total production
All agricultural products	77	88	102	113	116	119	119
Food products only	76	88	103	114	116	119	119
Population	81	94	102	107	109	112	114
Per capita production
All agricultural products	95	95	101	106	106	106	105
Food products only	94	94	101	106	106	107	105

**Table 4 — Changes in food production and population, 1959/1960-1961/1962 average in relation to prewar period**
	Population	Total food production	Per capita food production
	(Percentage increase*)
a. Minus sign indicates decrease.
b. Includes Yugoslavia.
c. Excludes mainland China.
d. Extends from Cyprus and Turkey to Afghanistan and includes Libya, Sudan, and the United Arab Republic.
Source: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 1962, p. 16, table 11-3.
North America	43	65	16
Western Europe^b	19	43	20
Eastern Europe	12	62	46
Oceania	52	44	–5
	—	—	—
Four above regions	21	56	29
Latin America	71	69	–1
Far East^c	46	45	–1
Near East^d	53	52	–1
Africa	53	52	–1
	—	—	—
Four above regions	51	54	2
	—	—	—
All above regions	38	56	13

achieved from the low levels of output per person that marked these areas of subsistence agriculture more than two decades ago.

The comparative ability of certain types of agricultural organization to expand output is further illustrated by Table 5. Here we see that the underdeveloped, peasant agricultural economies have barely regained their prewar levels of crop output per capita and that most of the postwar increase in agricultural production has been in the form of livestock products and has taken place in the developed countries. Thus, the period since 1950 has been marked by attempts by underdeveloped countries to rapidly expand agricultural production to keep pace with population growth, whereas that of developed countries has been to retard rates of increase in farm output to forestall sharp declines in the price of farm products and the income of agricultural producers.

Sources of increased production. Early economists postulated that agricultural production would place a limit upon economic growth and, finally, population growth in an economy. They predicted that expansion of output would require recourse to increasingly inferior land, to the point where food production would limit the amount of other goods that could be produced and even the population. For much of the world this model still threatens to become reality, yet in some economies agricultural products are produced in great quantity and with a declining proportion of the nation’s resources. It is this latter model of agricultural production that has attracted world attention and offers hope that the world can feed and clothe an expanding population and still produce increasing quantities of other goods and services.

This marked increase in agricultural production in the developed countries has been accomplished without expanding the land under cultivation and despite a major decline in labor used. It has been the result mainly of the addition of major capital equipment, in the form of machines, and the application of science to agricultural production. Science has made possible the development of new breeds of animals that produce more product per pound of feed; science has developed crops that produce more usable product from an acre of land; and science has produced new machines that make new capital investment more productive than that which previously existed. Research workers and individual managers have devised improved forms of economic organization that benefit from specialization and the economies of scale.

Thus, most of the increase in agricultural production in the advanced economies has been the

*Table 5 — Per capita food supplies available for human consumption, by regions, prewar world average = 100*
	PREWAR YEARS		POSTWAR YEARS		CURRENT PERIOD
	Crops^a	Livestock and fish^b	Crops^a	Livestock and fish^b	Crops^a	Livestock and fish^b
a. Vegetable oils and fats are not included.
b. Animals fats and oils are not included.
c. Not available.
Source: Food and Agriculature Organization of the United Nations 1963. p.18, table 8.
North America	178	394	172	460	157	495
Europe	120	154	120	147	120	199
Oceania	181	355	194	346	179	354
For East. including mainland China	84	38	75	30	83	38
Near East	112	72	108	71	125	72
Latin America	77	123	86	97	93	110
Africa	c	c	c	c	87	44
World	100	100	94	95	99	112

result of growth in productivity concurrent with sharp changes in factor proportions in the agricultural economy. One of the major problems of the advanced agricultural economies is to continue to adjust to the sharp changes in factor proportions that are necessary as a result of sharply differing rates of growth in factor productivity.

One of the characteristics of advanced agriculture is its heavy dependence upon reproducible factors of production, in contrast to the traditional dependence of agricultural production upon land. Since these reproducible items used in agricultural production generally constitute only a fraction of the total demand of an economy for steel, chemicals, and petroleum products, the supply of these productive factors is relatively elastic to the agricultural industry. Thus, if the price level for farm products is favorable to the increased use of reproducible factors of production, it is possible to expand agricultural production substantially in a short period of time. This is in sharp contrast to the traditional or peasant agricultural economies, where production is still dependent primarily upon the natural resources of land and water, family effort, and little, if any, reproducible capital. Since the supply of these traditional factors of production is not readily expandable, the output of farm products is not very responsive to favorable prices.

Although the expansion of advanced agriculture is relatively responsive to changes in output or input prices, contraction of aggregate output is much less so. Much of the reproducible capital used in modern agriculture has a useful life extending over several years or production periods, and once put into use in agriculture the capital is likely to continue in production until its productive value is exhausted. Even so, the dependence of advanced agricultural production upon a steady use of expendable flow inputs (fertilizer, insecticides, fuel) means that the prices of these productive factors relative to output prices can and do influence aggregate production.

If total agricultural production in the world is to expand sufficiently to provide for the growing world population, much of world agricultural production must be shifted from peasant or subsistence agriculture to some kind of market-oriented production units making use of advanced technology and large quantities of reproducible capital and having an economic organization capable of dealing with and responsive to economic change. Thus far only a small fraction of the world’s agricultural production is so organized, and improved organization of agricultural production stands as a major task in the underdeveloped economies. In the developed economies, where such advances in the organization of agricultural production have occurred, too little still is known about the basic economics in agriculture of capital flows and technological advance. Thus, the economics of agricultural production remains important throughout the world.

Dale E. Hathaway

[See alsoFoodandLand.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brown, Lester R. 1963 Man, Land, and Food: Looking Ahead at World Food Needs. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Economic Report, No. 11. Washington: Government Printing Office.

Eicher, Carl; and Witt, Lawrence (editors) 1964 Agriculture in Economic Development. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 1962 The State of Food and Agriculture, 1962. Rome: The Organization.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 1963 Third World Food Survey. Freedom From Hunger Campaign, Basic Study No. 11. Rome: The Organization.

Freedom From Hunger Campaign, Basic Study, Nos. 1–11. 1962–1963 Rome: FAO.

Schultz, Theodore W. 1964 Transforming Traditional Agriculture. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (1961) 1962 The World Food Budget, 1962 and 1966. Rev. ed. Foreign Agricultural Economic Report, No. 4. Washington: Government Printing Office.

V CAPITAL

Viewed broadly, agricultural capital (or, for that matter, capital in general) includes investments in the production of technological change (Schultz 1964, chapter 10) and in the training of people (Schultz 1964, chapter 12) as well as in physical properties such as barns, tractors, irrigation ditches, hoes, draft stock, cattle, hogs, and growing plants (Tostlebe 1957). So viewed, capital investment in agriculture varies widely from undeveloped to developed countries, from competitively organized to highly controlled economies, and from indigenous systems to plantation systems of farming in tropical regions. The movement of capital into and out of agriculture also varies widely among different kinds of agricultural economies, thereby having profound impacts on the development of the nonfarm sector as well as on the farm sector.

Agricultural capital is thus a most interesting subject of study. The formation, use, and movement of agricultural capital help explain differences in the productivity of diverse agricultural economies and in the welfare of farmers and nonfarmers the world over. By studying capital we can understand some of the differences in productivity between (1) private and publicly managed agricultural systems, (2) Nigerian and Thai rice producers, and between (3) western European and Soviet or mainland Chinese agriculture.

When one considers the formation and use of agricultural capital from a world-wide historical perspective, it is helpful first to examine what goes on in primarily agricultural societies. As such societies develop capacity to produce more than subsistence, it becomes possible for them to save and invest. The diversion of what might have been consumption into investment takes place first privately and later as a matter of public policy.

Once a farmer has acquired the ability to produce enough to feed himself and his family, he can divert part of his energy and resources to producing more tools, buildings, paddocks, and livestock for use in further production. These articles are capital equipment which he invests in production. The resulting increase in production in turn becomes available either for sale or reinvestment in production. If the extra product is sold, the income produced is available to purchase either capital or consumer goods. Often both capital and consumer goods are acquired, and output increases still further. Per capita farm incomes increase if the value of the increased output remains with the producers and if their population increase is less than the increase in output.

At various times in all societies, and typically in some, the process of diverting agricultural output away from consumption into investment has failed to develop, has broken down, or has proceeded slowly. The reasons for this are numerous, including, among others: (1) high birth rates and, hence, high demands for the means of subsistence; (2) meager natural resources and harsh climatic conditions; (3) military action, by either invaders or indigenous governments, which reduces agricultural output or curtails capital investment in agriculture; (4) demands for agricultural output and capital to develop the nonfarm economy; and (5) exploitation of agriculture by public measures. As a result of these and other conditions, governments, organizations of farmers, and other groups have often taken public steps to promote capital formation and investment in agriculture.

Public promotional policies and programs

Public steps to promote capital formation and investment in agriculture include the organization of public agricultural credit systems. Some are highly subsidized, such as the U.S. Farm Security Administration, and others relatively self-sufficient once brought into existence, like the Production Credit Association. Both of these arose as part of a public effort to expand and maintain the use of capital in U.S. agriculture in the depression years of the 1930s.

Also involved have been direct grants of capital to individual farmers. Recipients of such grants include Norwegians whose farms were damaged by the Germans retreating to the sea from northern Finland in World War ii; low-income farmers in the mid-1930s, covered by the U.S. Resettlement Administration; and Nigerian farmers under the Eastern Nigerian government’s tree-crop rehabilitation scheme.

Capital is also moved into agriculture as indirect public investment not going to individual farmers. It may be in the form of irrigation systems, roads, public market facilities, electrical facilities, drainage ditches, and flood control, to mention but a few. These investments may take place through direct grants, subsidized loans, or credit facilities which become self-supporting once established.

Though infrequent in the United States and western Europe, large-scale investment of public funds directly in farm production often occurs in countries with state-operated farms and plantations. In some instances these funds come from taxes levied on the nonfarm economy. In other instances, and perhaps more frequently, they come from levies of various forms on cash export crops such as rice, rubber, and oil-palm produce. The 1962–1968 development plan of the Eastern Nigerian government, for instance, provides for large direct investments in state-operated plantation and settlement schemes. A major source of this money is a “tax” levied on oil-palm producers by a marketing board which pays farmers less than the world price for the palm oil exported through it.

There are also important public capital investments in agriculture which are still more indirect than public investment in roads, irrigation projects, electrical facilities, and the like. These involve public-supported research and education, two of the hallmarks of the truly advanced agricultural economies of the world (Schultz 1963; 1964). The research and educational programs of the U.S. land-grant colleges and the Department of Agriculture are outstanding examples of public investment in human and technological capital. Heavy public investment in agricultural research and training is especially characteristic of the other advanced agricultural economies of the world such as Denmark, England, the Netherlands, Canada, and Australia.

In many economies public investment in agriculture is carried out with money obtained from the farm economy through direct taxes, export assessments, profits from state-owned or operated marketing agencies, or state income from appropriated farm properties. In Thailand, for instance, heavy export charges on rice support extensive public investment in irrigation facilities and in agricultural extension and research. In Nigeria, marketing board profits (taxes) provide capital to promote the agricultural projects of the 1962–1968 development plan.

In some instances, privately organized groups of farmers sell bonds and make credit contracts for the installation of drainage ditches, pumps, and irrigation equipment. In some such cases the savings come from the farm economy; in others, from the nonfarm economy.

Public policy is an important determinant of the rate of capital formation in agriculture. Some policies and programs exploit farmers heavily, leaving little surplus to accumulate in agriculture. If such taxes are levied on commodities in whose production the country has a comparative advantage, the over-all rate of capital accumulation in the country’s agriculture may be reduced substantially even though the tax moneys are reinvested in agriculture. This is especially true if corruption and inefficiency are associated with the expenditure of the funds and if the investments are in the production of crops and commodities in which the country has a low comparative advantage. If the funds are invested outside of agriculture, capital formation in agriculture may be reduced to zero. If taxes from parts of the agricultural economy with a comparative advantage are invested corruptly and inefficiently in the production of nonfarm products which have a comparative disadvantage, the country’s over-all capital formation and economic growth may be greatly curtailed or may even cease entirely.

Various countries have used different combinations of policies and programs both to promote agricultural production and to obtain capital to develop their nonfarm economies. The results have varied from starved people and unsupported industry at one extreme, to farm surpluses, rapid farm capital formation, low food prices, and substantial transfer of people and income out of agriculture for industrial development at the other extreme. Among the countries successful in finding a fairly effective combination of policies and programs is the United States.

U.S. experience

The role which expanded use of capital has played in increasing the output of the U.S. agricultural economy is of special interest to nations faced with the problem of expanding their agricultural output. It commands the interest of administrators and students of economic development the world over.

Strauss and Bean estimated that U.S. farm production doubled from 1870 to 1895 (1940). This expansion involved the use of more land, labor, and capital and better technology. The new technology was largely that developed by “free-lance” inventors and an aggressive group of agricultural entrepreneurs. It brought new equipment, improved breeds of animals, improved plant varieties and species, and advancing methods of organizing individual farms.

From 1895 to about 1925 the nation’s total agricultural output rose about as much as it had from 1870 to 1895 (Barger & Lansberg 1942). This increase was based on the use of more land, additional capital, and improved technology. The amount of labor used stayed essentially the same, but its quality improved with the expanding base for education (Johnson 1955). The capital used in this expansion was different from that of the preceding period. It involved mechanical power and improved varieties of plants and animals. This expansion also involved changes in tillage practices, crop rotations, and control of pests and diseases. At least as important as the new technology was the improvement in the human agent resulting from capital investments in both general and vocational training of farm people.

The next 17 years, from 1925 to 1942, resulted in another increase in production equal to the total output of 1870. When the prices of farm products fell relative to costs, special price-support programs maintained incentives to individual farmers, and special credit programs were developed to bring capital into agriculture. After the early 1940s agricultural production continued to expand at a rate which brought about, by the early 1960s, another increase equal to 1870’s output. By then agricultural production in the United States was approximately four times as high as in 1870. The expansions from 1925 to the early 1960s followed the general pattern of 1895 to 1925. Land use did not expand greatly but labor use contracted sharply, while capital use increased. The expansion of capital use went to improve technology and to educate farmers as well as to provide physical items of production such as tractors, breeding animals, buildings, fences, wells, orchards, and tools.

In the 1870–1960 period there were also important reallocations of agricultural production from farm to farm within regions, from region to region, and between the farm and nonfarm economy. These reallocations greatly increased the productivity of American agriculture relative to small-unit agricultural economies such as those found in Europe in the same period. Capital-embodying technological advance was instrumental, along with institutional changes, in making possible and in bringing about these reallocations of production. Increases in production exceeded, both proportionately and absolutely, the increased use of resources in agriculture. Examples of farm-to-farm reallocations of production are found in the emergence of specialized dairy, stock-fattening, and cash-crop farms in areas formerly characterized by generalized farming. At the regional level fruit, vegetable, and livestock production has been specialized in areas of high comparative advantage. Similarly, the farm economy has come to specialize in crop and livestock production while transferring to the nonfarm economy the production of marketing and processing services, such as power units (tractors instead of horses) and fuel (petroleum products instead of horse feed). Specialization became the outstanding characteristic of the modern American farm.

In addition to the higher output which has resulted from increased use of capital, improved technology, and greater specialization in U.S. agriculture, there is the vast amount of income transferred for investment as capital in the nonfarm economy. This income flow has been largely voluntary in the form of inheritances to off-farm migrants, a process free of the social and political problems involved in taxing and conscripting farm capital for the development of nonfarm economies.

At times this outflow, the pattern of capital accumulation, and the impact of business booms and depressions were such as to reduce the capital available to U.S. agriculture below its needs. This situation has been remedied, intentionally and sometimes unintentionally, with partially subsidized credit programs for farmers and with price-support programs which have increased the income available to farmers for use in capital formation.

While major public investments have been made in U.S. agriculture in education, roads, research, irrigation schemes, etc., no extensive public investment has been made directly in agricultural production; instead, an environment conducive to such private investment has been maintained. This is in sharp contrast to many developing countries. They have taken drastic steps, including taxation, appropriation, and export or other levies on exportable farm products, to transfer income out of agriculture to develop the nonfarm economy. When the depressing effects of these actions on farm production and farm capital formation become apparent, attempts are often made to stimulate agricultural production with direct governmental investment. Results of such policies to date, both in communist and in noncommunist countries, have been far from encouraging—the Soviet Union, China, Thailand, Argentina, and Nigeria being cases in point [see Communism, economic organization of, article onagriculture].

An alternative policy, followed in the United States from 1870 to 1960, has also been characteristic of Denmark, Australia, New Zealand, and England. It is the basis for the current expansion in agricultural output in western Europe. There, new institutional arrangements facilitate more specialization, better prices to farmers, and/or wider markets for those products which can be produced at a comparative advantage. Also, greatly expanded capital investments are being made in both the education of farmers and in the development of agricultural technology, while capital investment in direct farm production is left in the hands of farmers rather than carried out by governments. [See Agriculture, article ondeveloping countries.]

Experience of other countries

A brief survey of the creation and use of agricultural capital in different countries suggests certain generalizations about the types of institutions and policies which lead to rapid formation of capital in agriculture and to the transfer of income out of farming to promote nonfarm capital formation.

Broadly speaking it is possible to group the experience of various countries, at different times, into four categories:

(1) Success in increasing the stock of capital in agriculture, so as to obtain both high-level farm output and the transfer of substantial income out of agriculture for nonfarm development, in the presence of substantial natural resources relative to population.

(2) Success in obtaining sufficient growth of capital in agriculture to obtain both a high-level agricultural output and a transfer of substantial income out of agriculture for nonfarm development despite meager natural resources relative to population.

(3) Inability to obtain adequate capital growth in agriculture for high-level farm output and a significant transfer of income out of agriculture for nonfarm development despite substantial natural agricultural resources relative to population.

(4) Inability to obtain adequate capital growth in agriculture for high-level farm output and significant transfer of income out of agriculture for nonfarm development in the absence of substantial natural resources relative to population.

These categories suggest that agricultural capital formation and use of farm income are not determined solely by initial man–land ratios. Whether this independence is apparent or real is not too important. Obviously, if it is real other factors explain success and failure; if it is only apparent other factors obscure the true relationship. In any event, the other factors are of crucial importance as variables to be controlled by the policies and programs of a country.

The first step in isolating the other factors at work is to examine the countries which fall into the four categories: (1) success with substantial resources, (2) success despite meager resources, (3) inability despite substantial resources, and (4) inability in the presence of meager resources. In the first category are the United States (already discussed) and New Zealand; in the second, Japan (since early in this century) and Switzerland. In the third, we find the Soviet Union and Argentina (since the 1930s); in the fourth, Albania, Haiti and, perhaps, India. Further examination would extend the number of countries, but this list is sufficient to reveal common characteristics of the successful ones. Following are some major differences between the successful and unsuccessful countries.

(1) In successful economies favorable rates of return have been maintained as incentives for private farmers to adopt new technology and acquire new skills. In the unsuccessful economies, farm incomes have often been taxed or otherwise reduced and seldom if ever supported; rewards have not been tied specifically to adoption of new technology and acquisition of new skills.

(2) Whereas in successful countries land rents have been permitted to allocate use of land, in unsuccessful countries land rents have been eliminated or prevented by policy or custom from playing an allocative role.

(3) In the successful countries there has been extensive public investment to provide a broad educational base for farmers. In those not successful general education of farmers has been restricted; little public investment has been made in such education.

(4) Generally in successful countries there has been heavy investment in the agricultural sciences and disciplines devoted to technological advances in farming. In unsuccessful countries there has been little investment of this type.

(5) In the successful countries there has been large-scale public investment in extension programs aimed at helping private farm entrepreneurs adopt new technology, whereas in unsuccessful ones there have not been extensive investments in such extension programs.

(6) In successful countries public programs have not forced capital out of agriculture; at times movements of capital into agriculture have been encouraged. In some unsuccessful countries capital has been forced out of agriculture into the nonfarm economy, and in some instances political considerations have led to the actual destruction of agricultural capital.

(7) Whereas all successful countries have experienced large transfers of income from the farm to create capital in the nonfarm economy, in unsuccessful countries such transfers have been small or, when forced, moderate.

(8) All the successful countries, but only some of the unsuccessful, have made substantial public investments in roads, communications, irrigation, drainage, market facilities, etc., in indirect support of farm production.

(9) None of the successful, but several of the unsuccessful, are characterized by fairly permanent public investment in direct agricultural production.

(10) All of the successful show a tendency to overinvest in direct production to the extent of expanding production so as to put adverse pressure on farm product prices and returns on investment. The unsuccessful do not show this tendency; consequently food prices are high, but there is little evidence of high returns on investment.

(11) In successful countries, when investment in direct farm production has proven inadequate, individual farmers have been helped. In the unsuccessful, on the other hand, little help has been given individual farmers in similar circumstances.

(12) Among both the successful and unsuccessful there are countries that have benefited from substantial foreign markets and countries that have not.

(13) Among both successful and unsuccessful countries, some have received foreign aid and some have not.

Role of management

Our analysis of the performance of different economies in creating and using agricultural capital suggests that management—private and public—is a crucial variable. Publicly managed farm economies tend to underinvest in direct agricultural production while capital formation tends to lag. On the other hand, privately managed farm economies tend to overinvest. While many privately managed agricultural economies have substantial programs for public investment in the education of farmers and in the development of technology, it appears that both kinds of economies tend to underinvest in public facilities, the privately managed less so, however, than the publicly managed. The economies placing high reliance on private managers for direct-investment decisions are of two kinds: those characterized by rapid technological, economic, and institutional change; and those characterized by low-level technology, with few advances in technology, education, and institutions. The latter have tended to reach equilibriums not characterized by substantial capital accumulation.

The above observations raise the question: What is the role of management in the development of these tendencies in the use of capital?

Managers, private or public, make decisions. Decisions are made in order to obtain objectives that are private as well as public—even in the case of public managers, because private success, as a public servant, is also an objective for a public decision maker. Private interests of public decision makers do not coincide entirely with high output and rapid capital formation. There is little incentive, for example, for the public servant managing an agricultural unit to pay attention to biological and agronomic problems: the small details of insect, pest, and disease infestations, and the variations of land with respect to fertility, drainage, soil structure, etc. Instead, the public servant often finds it advantageous to concern himself with the politics of his governmental unit. Skill applied in “managing” bureaucratic details is often likely to increase the public manager’s remuneration more than skill applied to the details of biological production problems.

The private agricultural manager, on the other hand, maximizes his personal gain by close attention to biological and agronomic detail if the market pays enough to provide the motivation. The requirement of “pay to motivate” explains why direct attempts to transfer capital from agriculture to industry by taxation and confiscatory methods often retard both production and capital formation in agriculture.

There is a tendency for private managers to exhaust possibilities for gain. This explains why traditional farm societies not subject to technical, social, political, and economic change are so organized that it is difficult to improve income by better economic adjustment of their operation under the existing technology and the existing socioeconomic and political system. When, however, rapid changes take place in technology, human skills, and tastes as a result of public investment in research, agricultural extension, and general education, many opportunities develop for advantageous changes provided the gains are not taxed away or confiscated.

In the case of heavy taxation or confiscation, expansion in farm output and farm capital formation is retarded. Examples here include rice production in Thailand and oil-palm production in Nigeria. In these instances, public investment in research and education results in little expansion of production and little capital formation, given restrictive assessments which absorb 40 to 50 per cent of world prices for rice and oil-palm produce. On the other hand, just the opposite situation exists with respect to untaxed commodities in the same two countries. From 1944 to 1962, for example, in the absence of assessments and with publicly supported research and extension programs, swamp rice acreage in Nigeria expanded from virtually none to 85,000 acres. In Thailand, corn production expanded rapidly in the absence of restrictions and in the presence of publicly supported research and extension. In both countries, with expansion in production has come substantial formation of capital both in agriculture and in related supporting activities.

The tendency of private managers to overinvest in direct production remains to be discussed. As agricultural production requires space, transportation costs introduce large differences between the acquisition costs and salvage values of durable items of capital. This difference between acquisition costs and salvage values makes it difficult to correct mistakes of overinvestment and contributes to the high level of fixed costs in agricultural production. Private managers find it difficult to foresee the increase in total production and fall in prices which take place when many farmers respond to favorable changes in technology, human skill, or economic conditions. It is difficult to correct the overinvestment because of the transportation and other costs of disinvestment. If, on the other hand, mistakes of underinvestment are made, they are easy to correct as it will still be advantageous and easy to expand production. The result is a tendency toward overinvestment in those privately managed agricultural economies which are characterized by rapid technological change, improvements in the human agent, and unrestricted prices (Johnson 1958; Johnson et al. 1961).

The tendency toward overinvestment in privately managed farm economies results in some waste of capital relative to a possible optimum. But capital formation, farm output, and lower food prices (benefiting consumers) appear to be almost uniformly superior in privately managed, unrestricted farm economies to those achieved in either publicly managed or severely taxed, privately managed farm economies.

The tendency of both privately and publicly managed farm economies to underinvest in research, education, farm services, roads, and the like now needs to be considered. There seems to be fair evidence that this tendency to underinvestment is less pronounced in privately managed than in publicly managed farm economies attempting development. The tendency of public managers to pursue private ends has been used to explain underinvestment in farm production when such managers operate farms directly. The same argument applies to public managers of investments in public facilities, whether those facilities serve publicly or privately managed farms. The somewhat lesser tendency to underinvest in public facilities serving adequately motivated privately (as contrasted to publicly) managed farm economies can be explained by (1) the pressure that rather wellto-do farmers can put on public managers and (2) the higher rate of capital formation in such economies.

In summary we may make the following observations suggested by empirical findings:

(1) Farm capital formation takes place rapidly when farmers are in a position to gain from reinvesting part of their income and when they have major responsibility for investment in direct farm production. Public investment in direct farm production has rarely proven as effective as private investment.

(2) Rapid capital formation occurs when the public makes substantial investments in both the general and technical education of farmers, in improved technology for farming, and in its extension to farmers. Investments of this kind, however, have not been effective unless substantial incentives are given to private farm managers.

(3) Formation of farm capital is accelerated when the transfer of capital from the farm to the nonfarm sector is left to voluntary processes, including transfers in the form of inherited monetary capital as well as training received by farm children who migrate to nonfarm occupations. On the other hand, programs designed to force income out of agriculture make private agricultural investment unattractive; this leads to low capital formation, retarded farm production, high real farm-product prices, and a lack of income to transfer to the nonfarm economy.

(4) Lagging farm capital formation can be stimulated with favorable price programs and credit assistance to individual farmers.

(5) However, privately managed farm economies subject to price incentives tend to overinvest in direct farm production in the presence of favorable changes in technology, human skills, human tastes, and the economic environment. Publicly managed farm economies underinvest in direct farm production, even given similar changes in technology, human skills, and tastes.

(6) Privately managed farm economies move into a stagnant equilibrium in the absence of changes introduced by publicly supported research, technical extension, and general education.

(7) Both publicly and privately managed systems of direct agricultural production tend to be characterized by underinvestment in public facilities for agricultural research and extension and in general education, roads, and other public facilities.

GLENN L. JOHNSON

[See alsoAgriculture, article ondeveloping countries; Credit, article onagricultural credit.]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barger, harold; and Lansberg, hans H. 1942 American Agriculture, 1899–1939: A Study of Output, Employment and Productivity. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Johnson, Glenn L. 1955 Agriculture’s Technological Revolution. Pages 27–44 in The American Assembly, United States Agriculture: Perspectives and Prospects. New York: The Assembly.

Johnson, Glenn L. 1958 Supply Function: Some Facts and Notions. Pages 74–93 in Agricultural Adjustment Problems in a Growing Economy. Edited by Earl D. Heady et al. Ames: Iowa State College Press.

Johnson, Glenn L. 1964 A Note on Nonconventional Inputs and Conventional Production Functions. Pages 120–124 in Carl Eicher and Lawrence Witt (editors), Agriculture in Economic Development. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Johnson, Glenn L. et al. 1961 Implication of the IMS for Study of Responses to Price. Pages 150–169 in A Study of Managerial Processes of Mid-western Farmers. Edited by G. L. Johnson et al. Ames: Iowa State Univ. Press.

Schultz, Theodore W. 1963 The Economic Value of Education. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.

Schultz, Theodore W. 1964 Transforming Traditional Agriculture. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.

Strauss, Frederick; and Bean, Louis H. 1940 Gross Farm Income and Indices of Farm Production and Prices in the United States: 1869–1937. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Technical Bulletin No. 703. Washington: Government Printing Office.

Tostlebe, Alvin S. 1957 Capital in Agriculture: Its Formation and Financing Since 1870. Princeton Univ. Press.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture History Branch 1963 Century of Service: The First Hundred Years of the United States Department of Agriculture, by Gladys Baker et al. Washington: Government Printing Office.

VI LABOR

This article is concerned with farm labor, both self-employed operator families and hired workers, in the more highly industrialized countries. It centers principally on the United States, with comparative references to other industrial economies, mainly European. In all industrial countries, agriculture is becoming predominantly commercial, not only in the sale of output but in the purchase of production materials and services. Subsistence production (autoconsumption) is rapidly disappearing. Within each national system of agriculture one finds a complex of government actions and interventions mixed with components of competitive market forces. In their diverse effects these complexes of economic and political forces tend simultaneously to promote the absorption of agriculture into the industrial sphere and to perpetuate its insulation. These forces profoundly affect farm occupations and at the same time determine the efficiency with which the productive resources associated with farming are utilized in the various national economies.

This essay seeks to develop two perspectives: (a) an examination of the characteristics and composition of the farm labor forces and their employment from the standpoint of manpower utilization; and (b) an examination of the occupational categories of agriculture in terms of their opportunities, requirements, and rewards. For both perspectives, the essence is change and transition. Consequently, one can scarcely avoid being challenged to try to understand the forces that appear to be shaping the future. At the risk of neglecting an adequate survey of the contemporary situation in farm labor, the motivation underlying this essay is concern with future trends and prospects.

Off-farm migration and national policy

With varying degrees of awareness, with mixed feelings of satisfaction and regret, and with ambivalences of political posture and policy, the industrial nations have been witnessing the rapid decline of their farm populations. Those who view this with regret are mainly agrarian fundamentalists who see in migration off farms an erosion of cherished values; those who view it with satisfaction include industrial employers interested in filling job vacancies and the many persons who believe that farm incomes would improve if fewer people were engaged in agriculture.

In most of the industrial nations, postwar rates of off-farm migration have been so high that, if sustained for another two decades, they will virtually eliminate the farm population. National governments have not usually (with the principal exceptions of Austria and Switzerland) tried to restrain off-farm migration nor have many governments (excepting Italy and Sweden) taken direct action to accelerate it. Indirectly, through other interventions, governments typically have followed a complex of practices that have had the effect of simultaneously aiding and retarding occupational adjustments out of agriculture. The clash has come mainly between policies designed for the protection of agriculture in general and those aimed at structural renovation. Most countries have officially acknowledged the comparatively poor income position of farm people and have invoked protective measures, such as import restrictions, price supports, and various subsidies. Governments have also acknowledged that one of the main reasons for low farm income is low agricultural efficiency. With exceptions, they have also recognized that larger and (in Europe) less fragmented farms are an essential step in achieving the efficiency that would lead to more satisfactory incomes. Most countries have both protective and “structural” policies. Although the protective measures have long traditions, they are now usually viewed as transitional to achieving structural renovation. This relationship is explicit in Swedish law, and it is at least implicit in German law. Similarly, “agricultural adjustment,” as well as income improvement, was implied in the United States Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 and its numerous subsequent amendments.

The dilemma is that policies of transitional protection and policies of renovation and adjustment have not demonstrated compatibility. Protective measures, including subsidies, have a here-andnow quality that gives them considerably more political appeal than do the uncertain future prospects of structural transformation. Accordingly, national governments in their current budgetary and administrative actions are prone to give greater emphasis to protection and thereby to impede adjustments that would raise the efficiency of farm labor.

Yet in environments favorable to off-farm employment, as in the industrial countries in the postwar years, the magnitudes of occupational movement out of agriculture have been unparalleled in modern history.

For comparison of the differential effects of national policy and off-farm employment opportunity, we may look at what has happened in West Germany, Sweden, and the United States. West Germany has had overfull employment; labor has been imported in substantial volume for industry and construction; no significant effort has been made to facilitate the transfer of farm people into nonfarm employment; German agricultural policy is one of the world’s most highly protective. Sweden has had more than full employment; its agricultural policy is protective and yet designed to achieve structural rationalization; it has an affirmative manpower policy, which includes state support for relocation of the farm labor force. The United States had a favorable level of employment until 1958 but thereafter a high unemployment level ranging from 5 to 7 per cent; its agricultural policy is protective but less so than that of Germany, and it lacks structural objectives; until 1962 it had no cohesive national manpower policy; farm people seeking an occupational adjustment have had to depend upon their own resourcefulness.

The effects of these differing combinations of state policy and prosperity are reflected in the average annual rates of decrease in the farm labor force during the decade 1950-1960: Germany, 2.25 per cent; Sweden, 3.5 per cent; United States, 2.5 per cent.

These results suggest two generalizations of considerable significance: (a) policies of agricultural protectionism may have retarded the migration out of agriculture but have not effectively obstructed it; (b) farm people aspire to more satisfactory levels of income and, given a reasonable opportunity to achieve an improvement, are quite ready to give up whatever they may hold to be the cherished values of farm life.

Structural adjustments have accompanied outmigration. The number of farms has declined, though not as rapidly as the active farm population. The reduction in farm numbers has been achieved mainly by the amalgamation of small farms. Only in Sweden has the discontinuance of farms been significant, which is a reflection of a rationalization policy that includes eliminating farms in areas not well suited to agriculture. Amalgamation has typically not involved the very tiny farm to the same extent as the larger-sized small farm. In Germany and Sweden the decline was principally in the 2-2.5 hectare category, while the principal gain was in the 10-20 hectare size. The persistence of the very small farm is explained by the growing practice of part-time farming and off-farm employment.

Partial and provisional out-movements. Part-time farming appears to be on the increase in all industrial countries. This may be interpreted as a form of partial and provisional movement out of agriculture. A related practice is for farmers to discontinue operation while retaining ownership of their farms and leasing them to farmers who have other land. These partial occupational adjustments may imply a feeling of uncertainty about off-farm employment prospects and the desire to maintain some provision against this uncertainty. Since land values and rents are rising sharply in all industrial countries, there may also be the motivation to retain landownership as a source of income and of capital gain; for many it also provides a place to live.

Even if the opportunities for the provisional and partial forms of occupational adjustment should decline, agriculture will apparently continue in its traditional role as a reservoir of industrial manpower, but on a diminishing scale. For the immediate future, this potential is reduced somewhat by the tendency of off-farm migration to leave behind persons in older age categories. Even if farm policies continue to have a restraining effect on mobility, which appears likely, off-farm movement will probably continue to draw off significant numbers of people. In the European economies off-farm migration will apparently rest heavily on the “pull” factor, that is, on whether full and overfull employment can be maintained. In the United States, where a high rate of off-farm migration has continued despite substantial unemployment, it appears that a combination of “push” forces will sustain off-farm migration even without a climate of favorable opportunity. This expectation is supported by the fact that agricultural transformation in the United States is financial and managerial as well as technological. For example, efficient farmers are motivated to enlarge their operations and consequently to offer other farmers a price or a rent for their land that is persuasively attractive. The demand for land for enlargement is brisk, and so long as there are attractive opportunities to sell or rent, off-farm employment need not always offer a full replacement of the income to be realized from continuing to operate the farm.

The most likely future for the industrial countries is that the farm proportion of all gainfully occupied will decline to as little as one-half or perhaps even one-fourth of its present size. National governments almost universally are committed to the maintenance of high levels of economic growth. These policies should continue to provide off-farm opportunities. Even if political devotion to agricultural fundamentalism continues to nurture highly protective programs for farmers, such programs are not more likely in the future than in the past to generate satisfactory levels of income for all farmers. Consequently, it may be expected that individuals on their own initiative will continue to seek more favorable situations. Whether or not national policies to sustain growth and full employment are fully successful will make little difference to the older-age farm people, for their prospect is retirement. The critical question is whether the level of off-farm employment, together with manpower policies, including those for basic education and occupational training, will provide a favorable climate for the release of farm youth.

Although the farm labor force component in industrial economies will probably drop to 4 or 5 per cent, or even lower, one can be quite certain that the base of agriculture as a political interest will remain substantially larger. Farm landowners have as keen an interest in agricultural prosperity as do their tenants. Moreover, the decline in the number of farmers has been considerably offset by the rising participation of off-farm industries and service agencies—those that supply machinery and production materials, those that process farm products, the banks, and other investors. All have a stake in farm affairs and will add significantly to the political base from which farm and manpower policies are fashioned.

Changes in and among farm occupations

Notwithstanding the great changes of recent years, the dominant form of engagement in agriculture is still that of self-employed owner-operator, whose labor is customarily supplemented by family members and frequently also by temporarily employed wageworkers. Deviations from the dominant form occur principally when: (a) the farm is rented, entirely or in part; (b) the farm is so large that hired workers do most or all of the work; (c) the land is in a large ownership, and its use is divided into controlled rental or sharecropper units; (d) the owner is an absentee investor who employs a manager who in turn hires a work force.

In some places one or another of these deviations becomes the dominant form. The United Kingdom has mainly tenant farming, and its work force is composed principally of hired men. California is notable for large-scale employment of seasonal and migratory workers. Sharecropping continues to be a prominent form in Italy.

The occupational category of hired farm worker is also heterogeneous, but its range of diversity is perhaps less. Both operators and hired workers are to be found at the minimum level of skill and capacity, and at this minimum level both are likely to live in a state of poverty. But at the upper ranges of skill, capacity, and standard of living there are only operators; the hired worker who seeks occupational advancement in agriculture must become a farm operator to do so. Hired workers fall into two broad categories: (a) permanent, or year-round; and (b) temporary, or seasonal. Migratory workers, a widely and dramatically known group, are one portion of the large total of temporarily hired workers, all of whom are confronted with irregularity, insufficiency, and uncertainty of employment.

Growing importance of management function. In traditional farming systems the farmer had few entrepreneurial decisions to make; his primary activity was as self-employed laborer. Farming was indeed an uncertain business in terms of the hazards of weather, disease, and crop failure, but it was mainly the input of self-employed labor that was being risked. Now, as the ratio of capital to labor has risen multifold and production requires large money outlays for commercial inputs, the capital-managing and decision-making functions of the farm operator have become far more prominent. It is not unusual now for the American family farm operator to have a highly mechanized farm representing a total investment of $100,000 to $250,000. Production outlays may run to $50,000 per year. Yet the total labor requirement for such an operation (if it is in livestock or general crops, as opposed to vegetables or fruit) is not likely to involve more than 100 to 200 man-days of hired labor per year. It is easily seen that the management capabilities of such a farmer are more critical to success than the willingness to work diligently.

The average (or typical) size of farm, measured either in acreage, investment, or value of output, has risen significantly in all industrial countries. The increase in scale has tended to be in proportion to the labor substitution effect of mechanization; had this not been true, hired labor employment per farm would have risen in proportion to the increase in farm size, which it has not. As it has developed, the farm operator and family members typically supply most of the labor needs of the highly mechanized and capital-intensive farms. Thus, while the farmer has had to become ever more a capitalist, risk taker, and decision maker, he nevertheless has continued the tradition of being also a workingman, with the supplemental participation of other members of the family.

Given an environment favorable to the development of entrepreneurial talent, offering at the minimum good basic education and a public advisory service, it seems reasonable to expect the occupational combination working-farmer-manager-decision-maker to continue even in the face of further advances in mechanization and technology. But will the minimum conditions for widespread development of entrepreneurial ability be met? And—an equally urgent question—in view of steeply mounting capital requirements, can the self-capitalizing role of the farmer be sustained? The answers to these questions are somewhat interrelated, as we shall see.

Traditionally, farm capital is operator owned and borrowed—it originates from individual savings and debt obligations. Equity share participation, the foundation of industrial capitalism, is rare in agriculture. Consequently, entry into farming is largely determined by inheritance or marriage. Otherwise, the capital requirements exceed the ability of individuals to accumulate sufficient savings even if they are willing to assume large debt obligations. In former times Americans spoke of the “agricultural ladder,” a concept implying that a person could commence as a hired hand and, with hard work and parsimony, advance to tenant and ultimately to owner-operator. It was a romantic idea which long ago—when land on the frontier was abundant and cheap—had prospect of realization.

The requirements of self-capitalization may operate as an obstruction to the entry of entrepreneurial talent. In the nonfarm population there undoubtedly are capable individuals interested in farming who are not able to enter agriculture through inheritance; if they do not possess considerable wealth or the willingness to commit themselves to a large debt obligation, they will find opportunities for entry severely restricted. The traditional system imposes an obligation to “live poor and die rich,” that is, to commit a substantial proportion of current income to an obligatory savings program through debt amortization—from which only inheritors may realize any substantial benefit. Agriculture long remained the major sector of the economy in which enterprises were small enough to permit self-employment, self-management, and self-capitalization. But that day appears to be approaching its end, with the pressure for division coming principally through the capital function.

The implications of this analysis are that a separation of farm occupational functions is likely to become a necessity and, moreover, that it may be desirable. There are indications that such a separation is already beginning to occur. It is appearing mainly in three forms: (a) increasing rental of land (ownership thereby becoming separated from operation); (b) contractual arrangements, usually called “vertical integration,” through which capital or supervision, or both, are supplied by an outside agency, usually a marketing or processing firm; (c) incorporation, with the ownership of shares distributed among several investors.

Ownership of farmland by nonfarm investors is occurring in two ways: direct investment in farms by outside individuals; and retention of ownership of land by discontinuing farmers. But this process is not reflected in increased numbers of tenant farmers; rather, the rental land is being taken up by owner-farmers who wish to expand. In United States statistics, this shows up in some rather dramatic, but little noticed, data on “part owner” farms. These combined ownership and rental units have been increasing and now incorporate far more acreage under lease than that held by tenant operators. With the present trend, more than half of United States farmland will very soon be operated by part owners. As this is a means of consolidating and enlarging operating units without entering into the land-purchase obligation, the practice can be expected to continue.

The vertical integration (contractual) arrangement has both a capital and a management rationale. In addition to advancing credit, the processing or marketing company provides guidance and supervision as well as the assurance of a marketing outlet. Some observers are apprehensive of this arrangement because of the constraints it imposes on the farmer’s freedom. However, it does serve a purpose, and unless the obstructions to capitalization and the entry of entrepreneurial ability are otherwise overcome, further such expansions may be expected.

Incorporation of farms with distributed ownership of shares also continues to occur. There is little knowledge of its extent or rate of development. It is a form of organization that facilitates consolidation of valuable landholdings and offers the usual tax, inheritance, and other advantages long enjoyed by large industrial corporations.

Farms do not need to become the counterparts of the large industrial corporations to achieve production efficiency. Nevertheless, there is ample evidence that the basic efficiencies required to produce an acceptable level of income require a great deal more enlargement than has yet occurred in most areas. One may roughly estimate the minimum capital required for an efficient commercial farm at around $100,000. Whereas the mechanisms for assembling multimillion dollar participating capitalizations are well perfected, those for assembling farm capital in the range of $100,000 to $250,000 are not. One may speculate, accordingly, that unless there emerge mechanisms and procedures for shared financial participation in the larger commercial family farms, the tendency for them to be absorbed into multimillion-dollar corporate ownership is likely to accelerate.

Declining position of hired labor. Only exceptionally has farm work represented more than the residual chance for those unable to obtain more desirable employment. Recent years of economic growth have brought advances in welfare to many, but few to the farm worker. These generalizations have their greatest validity in the United States; perhaps Holland stands out as nearest to being exceptional. Whereas the Dutch farm worker is regarded as an integral part of the national occupational structure and is included in all social legislation, the American farm worker is regarded as, in effect, outside the national occupational structure and generally is excluded from such social measures as minimum wage requirements, unemployment insurance, and protection of the right to unionize.

In the United States the number of persons who do some farm work for wages has remained substantially constant throughout the postwar years, whereas the self-employed have declined sharply. But while the number of hired workers has been maintained, the proportion having only short-term, seasonal employment has risen. This development reflects the persistently slack nonfarm demand for the occupationally ill-prepared, whether the general level of unemployment is low or high. It also reflects a change in farm labor demand.

This trend toward less regular and more casual employment for farm workers is also observed in most European countries. In West Germany, for example, the prewar ratio of regular to temporary hired workers was 2:1; by 1962-1963 the proportions were approximately equal. Underlying the shift away from regular employment of hired workers is the change in labor requirements associated with technological change. Tractors eliminate the need to care for work stock and to raise their feed and mend their harnesses. Commercial fertilizers eliminate the necessity of handling barnyard manure; milking machines replace hand milkers. Processing and hauling of products to market have been taken over by off-farm agencies. But many farmers who can handle their basic activities of land preparation and planting still are likely to need outside help at harvesttime, particularly if they produce fruits and vegetables or similar crops that are not yet harvested by machine.

Concurrently with mechanization and other forms of technological change there has occurred a tendency to reduce the diversification of production on individual farms. The resulting specialization means less spreading of labor requirements through the year. The combined effect of technological change and farm specialization has tended to convert the hired labor demands of agriculture into an aggregation of temporary seasonal needs, thereby rapidly reducing the few remaining opportunities for farm wagework to be an occupation or a career. Regularly employed workers are now found mainly in poultry or livestock raising and in specialist and supervisory categories on the largest farms.

Attempts have been made to improve the economic situation of hired farm workers through collective bargaining and legislation. These efforts have been successful in Holland and the Scandinavian countries; they have had limited success elsewhere in Europe and Great Britain; they have almost completely failed in the United States. The failure in the United States is basically attributable to the fact that farm work is regarded as transitional—a job to be gotten out of as soon as possible, rather than one to be protected and improved. This attitude, shared by the workers as well as the community at large, has obstructed the development of group consciousness and cohesiveness, as has the fact that the bulk of employment is geographically spread, fragmented into small units, and temporary. The many sporadic efforts to unionize, almost none of which have been initiated from within the farm-worker population, have been failures. With farm workers having no organizations to protect their own interests, other interest groups sympathetic to their needs have attempted to have them included in legislation on minimum wages, unemployment insurance, and protection of the right to organize. Against the opposition of well-organized farmers, these efforts have enjoyed only a pittance of success.

Farming occupations in the future

It is scarcely conceivable that commercial farming will not become ever more technologically intricate and capital intensive. Increases in farm size are necessarily associated with effective use of technology and capital. Nevertheless, technical efficiencies of scale can still apparently be realized, for most types of farming, on units that are not too large for the operator and his family to work. But such a farm is becoming increasingly difficult to finance, except by inheritance. Financial organization may therefore become a more influential determinant of farm size than the technical requirements of efficient production. Techniques and procedures of financial organization may become the deciding factor in whether commercial farms remain essentially family enterprises or become large-scale corporations. Outside financial participation is essential under either alternative. If farms can be efficiently financed within the range of family enterprise, the farmer will be able to retain the major part of his traditional role, that of the self-employed entrepreneur. If the capital solution favors large aggregations, the complex of activities that have traditionally been those of the farmer will likely be split in such a way as to leave the hired manager as his counterpart. In any realistic view of the future, the farmer is not likely to remain a self-capitalist to the same extent as in the past.

The economic future of the farm worker is quite uncertain. Some atractive full-time jobs will remain in family-scale farm enterprise, particularly where livestock are involved. However, in family units that need an additional man or two on a steady basis, partnerships are likely to be more frequently used. There is no promising future in agriculture for workers who are employed seasonally and casually, at least not for those who depend upon it as a full-time occupation. Mechanization of hand labor tasks will be developed and extended; seasonal activities will continue to become shorter in duration. Whether agriculture can offer a substantial and attractive occupational base for hired laborers depends mainly upon the evolving pattern of farm size, for only on the large farm does the labor of the hired worker become more than merely supplementary to that of self-employed members of the farm family.

Varden Fuller

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Disparities in Pace and Form of Rural Development. 1964 International Journal of Agrarian Affairs 40, no. 3.

Dovring, Folke (1956) 1960 Land and Labor in Europe, 1900–1950: A Comparative Survey of Recent Agrarian History. 2d ed. The Hague: Nijhoff.

Hofstee, E. W. 1957 Rural Life and Rural Welfare in the Netherlands. The Hague: Government Printing and Publishing Office.

MÜller, Peter 1964 Recent Developments in Land Tenure and Land Policies in Germany. Land Economics 40:267–275.

U.S. Department of Agriculture 1963 Yearbook of Agriculture: A Place to Live. Washington: Government Printing Office.

wright, gordon 1964 Rural Revolution in France: The Peasantry in the Twentieth Century. Stanford (Calif.) Univ. Press.

VII PRODUCTIVITY AND TECHNOLOGY

Increase in productivity

Agricultural productivity in most economically advanced countries is now apparently growing at a much higher rate than was true in previous periods in history and, at least since World War II, at a much higher rate than productivity in other sectors of these economies (Fabricant 1959). In the northwest European countries “total factor productivity” in agriculture grew between 1950 and 1959 at the rate of 2.0 per cent per year, a rate that was slightly above the one achieved by U.S. agriculture during this same period (FAO 1962). Similarly high rates of growth are reported for the Soviet Union, although the margin of error in Soviet statistics is quite large (Johnson 1963). But neither northwest Europe nor the Soviet Union has had declines in labor used in agriculture comparable to those in the United States, although in both areas the agricultural labor force has begun to decline. In this respect, the recent United States and Canadian experience is almost unique.

As Table 1 shows, agricultural output in the United States grew at the approximate rate of 1.8 per cent per year during the 1949-1963 period. At the same time, man-hours used in agriculture were declining at the rate of 4.5 per cent per year. As the result of these trends, output per man-hour in agriculture rose at the astonishing rate of 6.3 per cent per year. While the use of purchased inputs such as fertilizer and machinery also increased at a relatively rapid rate, conventional measures of total input use in agriculture (which combine all the standard categories into one over-all input index) changed very little, leaving almost all of the observed growth in output to be explained by growth in total factor productivity or technical change (USARS 1963).

Historically, the recently observed rate of growth in U.S. agricultural output is not particularly high. During the 30-year period from 1880 to 1910, U.S. farm output grew at an average rate of 1.6 per cent per year. During that same period, however, most of the growth in output could be accounted for by comparable growth in inputs used, mainly land, labor, and machinery, leaving only a small fraction of the total growth (0.2 per cent per year) to be explained by growth in “total factor productivity” (Loomis & Barton 1961). What is unique about the recent experience of U.S. (and Canadian) agriculture is the almost complete stability in the conventional total inputs index.

This growth in output, which cannot be explained by comparable growth in inputs as conventionally measured (and that is what an increase in “total factor productivity” actually means), raises several interesting questions: (1) What were the actual sources of this growth? (2) What were the economic factors that determined the date and rate at which these various sources became operative? (3) Is it possible to improve the methodological framework for asking such questions so that at the end one does not remain with “productivity” ac-counting for most of the observed growth without productivity itself being accounted for in turn by other known factors?

*Table 1 — Average annual rates of growth of agricultural output and productivity, selected countries and periods*
		Output	Labour productivity	Total factor productivity	Approximate per cent of output growth accounted for by growth in conventional inputs
		(Per cent per year)
Sources: U.S. Agricultural Research Service 1963; Loomis & Barton 1961; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 1962; Johnson 1963; Lok 1961; Mundlak 1964.
United States:	1880-1910	1.6	0.6	0.2	88
	1910-1929	1.0	0.8	0.1	90
	1949-1963	1.8	6.3	1.8	0
Canada:	1926-1947	1.3	1.6	0.0	100
	1947-1957	1.1	5.4	3.0	0
Northwest Europe:	1950-1959	2.7	4.6	2.0	26
Israel:	1952-1961	13.2	9.4	5.3	60
Soviet Union:	1950-1959	4.9	5.7	3.3	28

Sources of the increase

Since the acreage of land used in agriculture in the United States has changed very little during the last twenty years, one can view the growth in output per man-hour in agriculture as the approximate sum of two components: the increase in yield per acre and the decline in labor used in agriculture. Because of the particular technological conditions of production in agriculture these two components of growth are somewhat independent, at least over a certain range, and can be discussed separately. The major sources of increases in yield per acre have been biological improvements in varieties (mainly hybrid corn and sorghums), increased applications of plant nutrients (fertilizers) and water (irrigation), improved cultural practices such as chemical weed control and denser plantings, shifts of crops to areas of higher comparative advantage (the localization of corn in the corn belt and the move of cotton into the western and southwestern states), and the introduction of crops that are higher yielding and more valuable, such as soybeans. Much of the growth in yields during the 1938-1949 period was due to hybrid corn and other similar biological developments. In the postwar period, the single most important influence on yields has been the rapid growth in the application of fertilizers, particularly of nitrogen materials, which more than tripled between 1949 and 1962. Varietal improvements were still important (as, for example, in hybrid sorghum) but affected a much smaller portion of the aggregate (Durost & Barton 1960; Johnson & Gustafson 1962).

The decline in labor in agriculture was made possible by the substitution of mechanical power and by a rise in the rate of utilization and in the quality of the remaining labor force. While the mechanization of U.S. agriculture was proceeding at a rapid pace in the 1920s, and even earlier, the substitution that was occurring at that time was mainly one of machines for horses and mules and not one of machines for human power. This substitution of mechanical for animal power actually had an important output-raising effect of its own. It released for human consumption a substantial amount of grain previously used by horses and mules. Labor use in agriculture did not begin to decline at a rapid rate until the early 1940s, when the increase in the demand for labor in the rest of the economy began to pull substantial amounts of labor out of agriculture. At the same time, farm machinery began to change from a substitute for animal power into a substitute for manpower. This process was aided by the increase in the effective size of farm machinery and by the rapid growth in the availability of various “attachments,” increasing the versatility of farm machinery and allowing one man to do a much wider variety of tasks with the same machine.

The impact of an approximate halving of the farm labor force between 1940 and 1962 was mitigated by the increased efficiency with which family labor was being used, mainly as the result of the very rapid increase in the average size of commercial farms and by the improved quality of the remaining labor force. Measured by an index of formal schooling per man, the average quality of the agricultural labor force increased by 15 to 20 per cent between 1940 and 1960.

Adoption of new techniques

There were many different economic forces behind these changes. Much of the original inventive effort occurred outside of agriculture. Agriculture benefited from general developments in genetics and chemical technology and from the decline in the real price, per horsepower-hour, of mechanical power. Economic incentives played a crucial role in determining the responsiveness of the farm sector to these developments. When the superiority of a particular new technique was clear and substantial, as was the case for hybrid corn in the corn belt, it was adopted relatively rapidly. It took only about four years for Iowa farmers to switch from mainly open-pollinated varieties of corn to almost entirely (90 per cent) hybrid varieties. In the southern United States the spread of hybrid corn lagged initially because no varieties adaptable to southern conditions were available until much later in the period. This lag in “availability” was largely due to the reluctance of private (and public) seed companies to enter into a substantially smaller and poorer market for their product. Furthermore, once they did enter the South, their product was accepted at a slower rate because the absolute profitability of the shift to hybrids was much smaller in the South, generally owing to the originally lower yield levels (Griliches 1960).

The rate of acceptance by farmers of new, superior techniques is largely determined by the absolute profitability of the shift to these techniques. On the other hand, the rate of adoption of more established techniques, such as fertilization, depends more on the rate at which their price (cost) declines relative to product and other factor prices. In either case, the crucial factor is the existence and magnitude of the economic incentive for the move. The use of fertilizers in U.S. agriculture, which has more than quadrupled since 1940, was greatly stimulated by the approximate halving of fertilizer prices (from their pre-World War II levels) relative to both farm product and other input prices. This fall was due to a series of developments in the nonfarm sector: the decline in the real price of energy, a main input in the production of synthetic nitrogen; the breakup of the nitrogen cartel as the result of government construction of new nitrogen plants during the war and their subsequent resale to new entrants into the industry; and the savings in transportation and handling costs, both at the manufacturing and retail levels, as the result of a continuous shift toward stronger mixtures. Similarly, the substitution of mechanical power for human labor was induced by the rising price of labor, which was due to the higher wages in the rest of the economy, and the resulting outmigration of farmers, and the decline in the real price of machinery, which was mainly the result of the decline in the real price of horsepower with the development of higher-compression engines.

Problems of measuring productivity

Given all the specific sources of output growth, why are they not reflected in the conventional productivity measures? The answer to this question lies in the way inputs are usually measured and combined to give “total factor productivity.” Most input measures make no, or only inadequate, allowances for quality change. In some cases the inputs are just counted, as if a ditchdigger’s and an agronomer’s man-year were equivalent. Many input series are constructed by “deflating” value series by some corresponding price index. This just pushes the problem of quality change back one step, to the question of how much price has really risen per constant-quality unit. Most price indexes are not very good at keeping the quality of the commodity price constant, but input price indexes are especially suspect. This is partly a reflection of the amount of resources spent (usually very small) on collecting input data compared to the resources spent on the collection of product data. The Consumer Price Index and its components are of more general interest, and much more money is spent on collecting data for them and on investigating their validity. While not perfect, they are thus much less subject to a secular upward drift caused by unmeasured improvements in the quality of the goods they price. By comparison, input price indexes are orphans in the world of social statistics and hence, because of poor measurement procedures and inadequate adjustments for quality change, have a much more pronounced tendency to drift upward. [seeindex numbers, article onpractical applications.]

In some cases, no direct price information is used at all. For example, the indexes used to deflate construction expenditures use input prices instead of product prices. The price of a well-specified house or structure is not collected; instead, the wages of construction labor, the price of lumber, etc., are averaged to arrive at an index of construction cost rather than an index of the price of construction. The difference between these two concepts is exactly equal to productivity growth in the construction industry. Using cost indexes instead of price indexes to deflate construction expenditures assumes that there were no improvements in productivity in the construction industry. This assumption leads to a very large downward bias in the resulting input series (the services of structures) and to the shifting of all the productivity growth in the construction sector to the productivity measures for sectors using its output.

In other cases, the commodity that is being priced may be quite complex, and it may be very hard to keep up with all the changes that are occurring in it. Some progress has been recently made in tackling this difficult problem through the use of statistical techniques. If one has an array of different models of a particular machine, differing widely in some important dimensions and consequently differing in price, it is possible to derive the implicit price per unit of a particular dimension (such as horsepower) and use this price to adjust for the change that has occurred in this dimension over time (Griliches 1964a). In principle, if we could measure inputs better, allowing for all the quality changes that have occurred, we should be able to account for a substantial fraction of what currently is attributed to “productivity.”

The usual total input indexes combine the various input series in proportion to the market price of these inputs in some base period or, what is almost the same thing, in proportion to the share of these inputs in total costs. This procedure assumes that market prices measure adequately the contribution of the individual inputs to the growth in output. For this to be true the relevant markets have to be in competitive equilibrium and there must be no economies of scale. But disequilibrium is the essence of change. It is quite likely that the contribution of those inputs whose use is growing is larger than would be measured by their market price. If this view is correct, then the standard measures may underestimate input growth in agriculture by overweighting declining inputs, such as labor, and underweighting growing inputs, such as fertilizer and machinery. The results of several statistical production function studies, which attempt to estimate directly the contribution of specific inputs in agriculture, seem to support this conjecture.

Similarly, the standard measures assume that no gain in efficiency can be had from increasing the scale of operations of a firm or farm. There is, however, a large body of evidence that points in the direction of substantial economies of scale in agriculture, at least in the size range where most farms are currently concentrated. The exact source of these economies is not very clear. One important source is the availability of larger and faster machines at lower prices per relevant work unit (horsepower-hour or acres plowed per hour). Another source is the possibility of more complete utilization of the available machine power and manpower on larger farms. The very substantial increase in the size of the average farm in the United States in recent years (over 50 per cent since 1950) seems to support the reality of these economies.

A recent study estimated the contribution of individual input categories by fitting a production function to data on agricultural output and input in 68 regions of the United States in 1949 (Griliches 1963). It found that the implied weights differed somewhat from the official ones in the conjectured direction (less weight given to labor and more to machinery), that differences in education per man did affect productivity, and that there was strong evidence of substantial economies of scale. In addition, on the basis of other studies and data, it concluded that the conventional measures of input change over time seriously underestimate the actual growth in inputs used in agriculture, in particular when the concept is broadened to include not only the growth in the quantity of inputs used but also the growth in their quality. Making a series of adjustments to correct for some of the biases in these conventional measures and combining the resulting adjusted input series by using the new weights, this study succeeded in explaining most of the growth in U.S. agricultural output between 1940 and 1960, leaving almost nothing to the residual “total factor productivity growth” category. The results of this study imply that (very) roughly about a third of the measured productivity increases are due to improvements in the quality of the inputs used (among which the rise in education per worker plays an important role), about a quarter to a half are due to a move toward the elimination of relative disequilibria, which were reflected in the overpricing of labor and the underpricing of capital services by conventional market measures, and that the rest are due to the expansion that occurred in the scale of the average farm enterprise.

A subsequent study reached similar conclusions (Griliches 1964b). That study, however, focused primarily on estimating the previously unmeasured contribution of public investments in agricultural research and extension services to the growth in aggregate output. It fitted an aggregate production function to state output and input data for 1949, 1954, and 1959, including an estimate of public expenditures on research and extension for each state (per farm, lagged) as an additional outputdetermining variable. The coefficients of this variable, which were relatively large and statistically significant, provided an estimate of the contribution of these expenditures to the observed increases in output and imply that about 30 per cent of the increase in the aggregate output of U.S. agriculture between 1949 and 1959 is attributed to the rise in public research and extension expenditures per farm. The rest of the accounting was similar to that arrived at in the previously quoted study (Griliches 1963), except that the later study attributed a somewhat smaller role in the total to economies of scale.

Such “complete” accounting for the observed productivity increases does not mean that there were no meaningful increases in agricultural productivity during these periods or that no important changes occurred in the techniques of production used in agriculture. It does, however, indicate a way of providing an explanation for what were previously unexplained increases in farm output.

Zvi Griliches

[See alsoProductivity.]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Durost, Donald D.; and barton, glen T. 1960 Changing Sources of Farm Output. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Production Research Report, No. 36. Washington: Government Printing Office.

Fabricant, Solomon 1959 Basic Facts on Productivity Change. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Food and Agriculture organization of the united nations 1962 Agricultural Commodities: Projections for 1970. FAO Commodity Review, Special Supplement. Rome: United Nations.

Griliches, Zvi 1960 Hybrid Corn and the Economics of Innovation. Science New Series 132:275-280.

Griliches, Zvi 1963 The Sources of Measured Productivity Growth: United States Agriculture, 1940-1960. Journal of Political Economy 71:331-346.

Griliches, Zvi 1964a Notes on the Measurement of Price and Quality Changes. Pages 381-404 in Conference on Models of Income Determination, Chapel Hill, N.C., 1962, Models of Income Determination. Conference on Research in Income and Wealth, Studies in Income and Wealth, Vol. 28. Princeton (N.J.) Univ. Press.

Griliches, Zvi 1964k Research Expenditures, Education, and the Aggregate Agricultural Production Function. American Economic Review 54:961-974.

Johnson, D. Gale 1963 Agricultural Production. Pages 203-234 in Abram Bergson and Simon Kuznets (editors), Economic Trends in the Soviet Union. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.

Johnson, D. Gale; and Gustafson, Robert L. 1962 Grain Yields and the American Food Supply: An Analysis of Yield Changes and Possibilities. Univ. of Chicago Press.

Lok, Siepko H. 1961 An Enquiry Into the Relationships Between Changes in Over-all Productivity and Real Net Return Per Farm and Between Changes in Total Output and Real Gross Return: Canadian Agriculture, 1926-1957. Ottawa (Canada): Department of Agriculture, Economic Division.

Loomis, Ralph A.; and Barton, Glen T. 1961 Productivity of Agriculture: United States, 1870-1958. Technical Bulletin, No. 1238. Washington: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Mundlak, Yair 1964 Long-term Projections of Supply and Demand for Agricultural Products in Israel. Volume 1: General View and Summary. With projections of population and income by Nadav Halevi. Jerusalem (Israel): Hebrew Univ., Faculty of Agriculture.

U.S. Agricultural Research Service, Farm Economics Research Division 1963 Changes in Farm Production and Efficiency: Summary Report, 1963. Statistical Bulletin, No. 233. Washington: U.S. Department of Agriculture.

VIII MARKETING

Marketing, in the usage of agricultural economists, encompasses virtually all activities relating to agricultural commodities from sale by original producers to purchase by final users. It includes the physical operations of transportation, storage, processing, and related sorting, packaging, and other handling. It includes buying and selling and pricing, trading practices and organizational arrangements, and the competitive structure of markets. It includes such related activities as grading and standardization of products; provision of market information; financing of trade; the bearing and shifting of risks; merchandising, advertising, and promotion; and the development and market testing of product innovations. It also includes related governmental activities, such as those aimed at regulating and facilitating trade or intervening in pricing.

This usage is more comprehensive than that of general economists, who restrict marketing primarily to pricing and the activities involved in transfer of ownership. It differs also from the usage of business economists, whose focus is primarily upon policies of firms in planning their operations for most effective distribution of their products.

Marketing is, of course, the concomitant of specialization in production. In a truly subsistence economy there would be no marketing. In an economy in which trade occurred only between original producers and final users there would be no “marketing margin” between producer prices and consumer prices. Marketing costs would be borne directly by producers and users, and farmers would receive all of the “consumer’s dollar.”

Marketing becomes of distinct concern where there are intermediaries—“middlemen”—involved in the transfer of goods from specialized producers to final users, whose return comes from a margin between the price paid producers and that charged consumers. The “costs” of marketing then become evident as an offset to the benefits of specialization in production. These costs typically increase as the economy develops. It is not fortuitous that explicit concern with agricultural marketing developed in the United States at a time when agricultural production was becoming predominantly specialized and when the growth of cities was coming to require an elaborate and far-flung system of supply, the costliness of which was reflected in a substantial and widening margin between farm and retail prices.

Inherent complexities

Part of the costliness of marketing agricultural products arises from the dispersion of production and consumption. Farm production over most of the world is carried on by many small producers. Even where it is conducted on large, centrally managed plantations or collectives, it is necessarily spread out—it cannot be concentrated in factories, as can production in many other industries. Similarly at the consuming end, marketing must make products available in small quantities to meet the daily needs of individual families. Hence a widespread marketing system has a gross task of first assembling products and then redistributing them.

The biological production process in agriculture creates further problems in the marketing of its products. Production is seasonal; the whole year’s output of some crops is harvested in a few weeks. The production period is long; several months elapse from preparation for planting to time of harvest for most crops, and for tree crops and animals of long gestation the period is longer still. The products are perishable, many of them highly so. Output is uncertain; weather conditions, diseases, insect infestations, and the like affect both the quantity and the quality of product. And quality varies from unit to unit within a crop; the agricultural production process does not yield a standardized product.

These conditions of production have several consequences for marketing. The volume coming to market varies seasonally; for some commodities the seasonal peaks are very sharp. To avoid spoilage losses, perishables must be utilized quickly—either consumed or processed into storable form. Special handling is required for their protection. Processed products and the less perishable staple commodities must be stored to meet year-round consumption needs. Year-to-year variations in supply add to the uncertainties in marketing. Variability in product quality makes market valuation difficult and complicates processing.

Both the variability of supply of farm products and their perishability make marketing costly. They also make it risky, not only because of the danger of spoilage losses but also because of price uncertainty. Since food serves a satiable want, the demand for food commodities is typically inelastic at high levels of supply. Prices thus tend to be unstable. For perishables that must be disposed of before they spoil, a small oversupply can cause a drastic drop in price. And while sudden price decreases are less likely in storables, over the long period of storage they can suffice to cause substantial losses, especially in view of the large investment where the year’s supply must be held from harvest to harvest.

The long production period of agricultural products is a further unstabilizing factor in marketing, since it delays the response of supply to price. Once the planting season of a crop is past, little can be done to increase the current season’s supply, and it can be decreased only by abandoning the investment already sunk in it, which will not be done so long as the prospective price gives hope of covering the remaining costs of carrying it through to market.

The organization of markets

The widening of markets, in addition to permitting specialization in production, also mitigates some of the problems just described, by diluting their effects. It is of interest, therefore, to review some prerequisites of a widely organized marketing system.

Even in relatively primitive economies, presumed to have only a “subsistence” agriculture, there is, typically, considerable marketing. Each community has its market where produce is exchanged on certain days. Even though trade is predominantly local, there are usually some persons who specialize in buying and selling and in such supporting activities as carrying. In such widely separate societies as Java, west Africa, and the Indian communities of Guatemala, women traditionally do much of the local marketing.

The local markets are often structured throughout an area, each operating on a different day of the week so that professional traders can carry wares from one to another. This encourages local specialization in production by providing an expanded market for local surpluses. Typically, a group of small markets is tributary to a central market where trade, on a larger scale, includes wholesale transactions with central markets of other areas. Thus a network of markets is built up throughout a region, which may tie in with other regional or international systems of trade.

This larger, longer-distance trade is more often carried on by men, and in many societies it is dominated by aliens—the Chinese in southeast Asia and Indonesia, the Indians in east Africa, and people of Levantine origin in west Africa. This has been explained by the freedom of such immigrants from the disapprobation that some indigenous groups attach to trade; also by the cohesiveness of alien minorities, which enables them to enforce codes of ethical trade conduct among their members over large areas.

The breadth of markets—and the kinds and degree of regional specialization in production that are possible—depend first of all upon the density of population and the means of transport available. Where transport is upon the backs of men or the heads of women or, at best, by oxcart, the area that a market can serve is limited and the individual lots traded are small. Marketing of perishables is restricted to the local area; for bulky staples, the cost in human time and effort is a barrier to intensive specialization in production for distant markets.

The technological basis for a widespread agricultural marketing system thus rests first of all upon rapid, low-cost transportation. It depends equally upon rapid, low-cost communication. Also important are efficient methods of storage, of processing, and of protecting products from spoilage and damage.

But the widening of markets also depends upon devising effective organizational arrangements for managing the movement of products and the flow of payments for them. There must be an “intelligence” system, providing the information needed for correct decision making. There must be arrangements for transfer of payments and for mobilization of capital funds to finance commodities in marketing channels, including the spreading of risks involved in interseasonal holding of commodities. Needed in support of all of these are standard measures of quantity and accepted methods for identification of quality of commodities in trade channels, as a basis for proper evaluation. Most important of all is the need for a framework of legal and ethical arrangements within which large-volume, long-distance transactions can be entered into rapidly with mutual confidence among the parties concerned.

In a marketing system coordinated through open, competitive markets, pricing is the heart of the coordinating system. Price theory and agricultural prices are discussed under other headings [seecompetitionanddemand and supply]. It suffices here to point out that effective coordination of agricultural markets requires rapid collection and dissemination of information on current and prospective supplies and movements of commodities and on prices throughout the market. In many countries the private communication between buyers and sellers and the brokers and other agents who represent them is supplemented by an extensive trade press and radio service that reports current market information and by publicly maintained crop-forecasting and market-reporting services. There is also public establishment of standard weights and measures, and of standards of quality for major commodities, and frequently public maintenance of an impartial inspection service for certifying the quality and condition of lots of commodities in trade channels. Flow of funds is provided by a widespread commercial banking system —both for facilitating payment in long-distance transactions and for making credit available for financing market operations.

Longer-term problems

The longer-range coordination of production and consumption of agricultural commodities presents more difficult problems because of characteristics previously pointed out: the long production cycle and consequent slowness of response of supply to price; and the uncontrollable variations in production, especially in the face of inelastic demands. Farmers cannot know at planting time what the prices of alternative crops will be at harvest time; they cannot even know what their own yields will be. Processors and distributors face corresponding uncertainties.

One response to this difficulty is the pressure for government intervention in markets to stabilize prices and manage supplies. Measures sometimes undertaken for this purpose include: year-to-year storage of staple crops, purchase and extracommercial distribution of price-depressing surpluses, the setting of quotas limiting the acreages that farmers may plant to certain crops, price fixing, subsidies to producers and low-income consumers, collective-bargaining schemes, the sponsoring of marketing boards or marketing agreements or quasi-public corporations with varying degrees of monopoly powers in the management of supplies, discriminative pricing schemes for diverting surpluses to secondary uses, and the many devices used for controlling or managing foreign trade in agricultural commodities. Various such measures are discussed under other headings [see particularlyagriculture, article onprice and income policies].

Forward contracting. A variety of private devices are also used to improve longer-term coordination. One is vertical integration, in which several of the stages between farm production and retail distribution are brought under single ownership and management. Similar results are achieved in part by forward contracting. A feeder may contract with a cattle raiser for future delivery of feeder stock. A distributor may contract with a processor in advance of the packing season. In turn, the processor may contract with growers for specified acreages of canning crops. Such contracts give buyers assurance of future supplies and give growers assurance of an outlet for their produce. Futures trading [seespeculation, hedging, and arbitrage] is, of course, a highly organized form of forward contracting in which the contracts themselves are negotiable in trade.

Forward contracting has been encouraged by the increasingly close technological relation between farm production and processing. For example, processors contract with raisers of broiler chickens in order to be able to schedule the flow of raw materials to the processing plants. Contracts likewise facilitate quality control, as when a contract for a canning crop specifies the variety of seed to be sown and gives the canner supervision over spraying and other cultural practices and over the maturity of crop at harvest.

Such vertical “contract integration” reduces market uncertainties for the parties engaging in it. Because it bypasses the open market, however, it reduces the coordinating role of the price mechanism of that market.

The lengthening of marketing channels in a highly developed economy, and especially the increased processing to which modern technology has given rise, creates a further problem of vertical coordination. The wide separation of consumers from original producers attenuates the effectiveness of consumer demand as a guide to production. This is reflected in the increasing emphasis upon research into consumer preferences and buying behavior and the increasing use of advertising promotions and other merchandising schemes to manipulate final demand.

A further consequence of modern technology (including in this term techniques of management organization), coupled with the growth in scope of markets, is that economies of scale lead to the growth of very large enterprises. In the United States, some food processors are among the largest corporations, as are some chain-store food distributors. This need not indicate monopolistic concentration, for monopoly must be defined in terms of the size of the market: a small firm may enjoy a monopoly position in an isolated local market, and giant corporations may compete intensively in a market of nationwide scope. Growth in size of enterprises in the food industries nevertheless constitutes a change in market structure whose consequences have been inadequately analyzed. An enduring policy problem is how to retain the efficiencies of large-scale operations, yet prevent abuses of the market power that may be associated with them.

Farmers have attempted to secure advantages of size through cooperative marketing associations, a number of which in the United States are significant in the national market. Encouragement of farmer cooperatives is public policy in many countries. Their management presents unique problems if the farmer members are to retain effective control, yet permit flexible and progressive operation. They can, however, strengthen the market position of farmers vis-à-vis proprietary firms. Typically, their major advantage has been found to arise not simply from their activity as bargaining organizations but from efficient performance of processing or other marketing functions on a scale beyond the resources of individual members.

Government interest

Because agricultural marketing plays so important a role in supplying foods and other essentials to consumers as well as in determining the incomes of the farm population, it has traditionally been a subject of public concern. In economies that have developed under a predominantly laissez-faire philosophy, this concern has expressed itself chiefly in regulation to restrain abuses, in public provision of services that private trade cannot readily provide, and in intervention where free markets give unsatisfactory results.

In the United States agricultural marketing was recognized as a distinct area of study in the U.S. Department of Agriculture by 1913. The early concern was with the apparently disadvantageous market position of farmers; with things farmers might do to improve their position, either individually, as by better sorting and packing of products and better selection of market outlets, or jointly through cooperative marketing associations; and with the need for public action to curb abuses in marketing and to provide such services as market reporting, promulgation of grade standards, and product inspection.

The collapse of farm prices following World War I and the extreme deterioration of markets during the depression of the 1930s brought great interest in schemes for stabilizing and supporting farm prices, controlling market supplies, and subsidizing both domestic consumption and exports. During World War II price guaranties were used to encourage increased production of farm products; and price controls, allocation orders, and consumer rationing were part of a wide-reaching program for wartime management of supplies of foods and other essential commodities.

At the close of the war, concern lest markets might again collapse led to substantial expansion of agricultural marketing research. Special emphasis was placed upon increasing the efficiency of physical handling of products at all stages of marketing in order to reduce marketing costs, and upon expansion of markets through study of consumer wants, preferences, and buying behavior, improvement of products and services, and more effective merchandising and promotion.

The chronic depression of prices for farm products during the 1950s and continuing into the 1960s, accompanied by the accumulation of large surpluses in government hands, led to renewed interest in pricing and the competitive structure of markets, and in schemes for using surplus commodities as a form of aid to developing countries.

At the same time, the extension of technical aid to these countries opened the eyes of agricultural economists to the importance of marketing in facilitating or hampering the transition to commercial agriculture. In agricultural development in such countries, primary emphasis is usually placed upon increasing production. But there is need for simultaneous planning of market development, not only to assure the most effective use of increased commercial supplies but to provide adequate incentives to farmers to produce for the market in the first place.

At the same time, the intricacy of activities involved in a widespread, flexibly operating, efficient marketing system strongly recommends much decentralization of decision making. The need is for the kind of entrepreneurship by which many individuals will make decisions on their own initiative and use ingenuity in devising improved methods and meeting emergent needs. In this way, market development can proceed autonomously, with minimum burden upon the scarce resources of central government management. How to encourage this within a planned economy presents a most interesting problem.

Agricultural marketing, in short, encompasses the system of managing a country’s supplies of food and other essential commodities. Upon the efficiency of this system depends the possibility of maintaining an urban industrial population. The system thus plays a vital role in economic progress.

Herman M. Southworth

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Much marketing research is reported in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Marketing Research Reports and in bulletins of state agricultural experiment stations.

Abbott, John C. 1962 The Role of Marketing in the Development of Backward Agricultural Economies. Journal of Farm Economics 44:349-362.

Abbott, John C. et al. 1962 Marketing: Its Role in Increasing Productivity. Freedom from Hunger Campaign, Basic Study No. 4. Rome: FAO.

Bauer, Pèter T. (1954) 1963 West African Trade: A Study of Competition, Oligopoly and Monopoly in a Changing Economy. London: Routledge.

Bohannan, Paul; and Dalton, George (editors) 1962 Markets in Africa. Northwestern University Africa Studies, No. 9. Evanston, 111.: Northwestern Univ. Press.

Bowring, James R.; Southworth, Herman M.; and Waugh, Frederick V. 1960 Marketing Policies for Agriculture. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Clodius, Robert L.; and Mueller, Willard F. 1961 Market Structure Analysis as an Orientation for Research in Agricultural Economics. Journal of Farm Economics 43:515-553.

Collins, Norman R.; and Holton, R. H. 1963 Programming Changes in Marketing in Planned Economic Development. Kyklos 16:123-136.

Dewey, alice G. 1962 Peasant Marketing in Java. New York: Free Press.

Hoffman, Austin C. 1940 Large-scale Organization in the Food Industries. U.S. Temporary National Economic Committee, Monograph No. 35. Washington: Government Printing Office.

Irwin, harold S. 1954 Evolution of Futures Trading. Madison, Wise.: Mimir Publishers.

Irwin, Harold S. 1962 The Intangible Side of Agricultural Marketing: A Neglected Area of Research. Journal of Farm Economics 44:808-819.

Kohls, Richard L. (1955) 1961 Marketing of Agricultural Products. 2d ed. New York: Macmillan.

Marketing Evolution and Innovation. 1963 Journal of Farm Economics 45:1243-1271. → A symposium.

Market Organization and Economic Development. 1959 Journal of Farm Economics 41:1307-1331. → A symposium.

Mighell, Ronald L.; and Jones, Lawrence A. 1963 Vertical Coordination in Agriculture. Agricultural Economic Report No. 19. Washington: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

Nicholls, William H. 1941 A Theoretical Analysis of Imperfect Competition With Special Application to Agricultural Industries. Ames: Iowa State College Press.

Shepherd, Geoffrey S. (1946) 1962 Marketing Farm Products: Economic Analysis. 4th ed. Ames: Iowa State Univ. Press.

Skinner, George 1964-1965 Marketing and Social Structure in Rural China. Journal of Asian Studies 24:3-43, 195-228, 363-399.

Tax, Sol (1953) 1963 Penny Capitalism: A Guatemalan Indian Economy. Univ. of Chicago Press.

U.S. Departmentof Agriculture 1954 Yearbook of Agriculture: Marketing. Washington: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Farmer Cooperative service (1948) 1965 Farmer Cooperatives in the United States. Rev. ed. FCS Bulletin No. 1. Washington: U.S. Farmer Cooperative Service.

Waugh, Frederick V. (editor) 1954 Readings on Agricultural Marketing. Ames: Iowa State Univ. Press.

IX PRICE AND INCOME POLICIES

Agricultural price and income policies involve the use of governmental authority to increase and/or stabilize agricultural prices and incomes. The measures used to stabilize prices include stock acquisitions, control of domestic and foreign supplies, price supports, and direct subsidies. Programs to increase prices have used similar methods; in fact, most programs to stabilize prices have involved efforts to achieve a long-run average level of prices in excess of what would have otherwise prevailed. The measures to increase the income of farmers have included research to improve farm production methods, farm management advisory services, low-cost credit, aids to farm consolidation and off-farm migration, direct subsidies, control of output or marketings, and price supports.

Historical development

Governmental interference with, or regulation of, the prices of farm products can be found throughout recorded history. An example, more than three millenniums ago, was Joseph’s granaries in Egypt. During the mercantilist period, most of the advanced nations of the world regulated the trade in certain agricultural products. The most famous of the regulations in modern history were the British corn laws, whose beginnings can be traced to 1463. The British corn laws were in existence for approximately four centuries and included many of the devices for influencing price and trade that are now used. These included prohibitions on exports (unless the domestic price was below some given level), export taxes, export bounties or subsidies, and import duties that varied with the domestic price. From 1796 through 1810, bounties were paid in most years to encourage the importation of grain; during some of the same years, export bounties were also paid. Furthermore, in 1623 a proclamation was issued authorizing the construction of public granaries for keeping the surplus of one year to offset the poor crops of another year; apparently none were built.

It can be said that the corn laws had two basic purposes: (1) to maintain the price of grains at a level that would encourage domestic production and (2) to moderate the variability in the price of grain. Until 1814, when export bounties were abandoned, these two objectives were to be achieved by a sliding scale of import duties, which were prohibitive at low grain prices and nominal when grain prices were high, and a bounty on exports when the grain price fell below a specified level. It is reasonably clear that the corn laws were ineffective in stabilizing grain prices; a moderately short crop tended to force the price of grain to the maximum at which almost free importation was permitted, and an above average crop forced prices down to the point at which exportation was permitted and, if the prices were still lower, subsidized.

The effect of the corn laws upon the price of grain has never been adequately determined and probably cannot be from the available data. From 1697 through 1792, exports were substantially larger than imports; during this period, the export bounty was perhaps 5 per cent to 10 per cent of the domestic price. After 1792, England was generally a net importer of grain and the export bounty was of little significance. Under the schedule of import duties that became effective in 1828 and which remained unchanged until 1842, the duty was nominal when the British grain price was 73 shillings per quarter but increased to about 50 per cent of the c.i.f. price when the domestic wheat price was 65 shillings. Most wheat imports were made when the tariff duty was low and the domestic price quite high. However, from 1828 through 1840, almost a tenth of all wheat imported paid a duty of £1 or more, which was equal to a duty rate of 30 per cent or greater. Thus it is fairly clear that the corn laws had the effect of increasing grain prices during this period, but it is not possible to estimate the magnitude of the increase. The very substantial increase in imports following the reduction of the duties in 1842 and their elimination in 1846 also supports the contention that grain prices were increased significantly by the corn laws.

If we exclude the many governmental monopolies that have been established for centuries for various agricultural products, such as tobacco, opium, and alcohol, the first use of the modern technique of price support was probably the Brazilian coffee valorization scheme, which had its beginnings in 1902. The coffee scheme involved government loans to coffee producers, enabling them to hold stocks and thus reduce the quantity marketed, and prohibitions on further planting of coffee trees. Other early examples of price supports include a loan and storage program for currants, established in Greece in 1905; a program for controlling the types, acreages cultivated, and purchase prices of tobacco, established in Japan in 1905; and, in Great Britain during World War I, minimum or guaranteed prices for grains.

General adoption of price and income measures is largely a phenomenon of the past three decades. In the United States, the Federal Farm Board was established in 1929 to provide loans to hold farm commodities off the market in the face of the rapid decline of farm prices during the early years of the great depression. Within a period of little more than two years, the financial resources available to the Federal Farm Board were largely exhausted and the decline in farm prices had been little affected by its actions. It was argued that a primary reason for the failure of the Federal Farm Board was that it did not have authority to limit production to the amount that could be sold at reasonable prices. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 provided for a wide variety of measures to improve farm prices and incomes—acreage or output limitations, price supports, processing taxes, and subsidies. Significant parts of this act were declared unconstitutional in 1936; however, except for the processing taxes (which had an adverse effect on farm prices in any case), all of the major features of the act, plus other extensions of authority, were re-enacted by Congress between 1936 and 1938. Except for some changes in emphasis, the farm legislation of the period from 1933 through 1938 is still the basis of current farm income and price programs in the United States.

The farm price and income problem

Government action in agriculture has been based on one or both of two assumptions: (1) farm prices and incomes are too variable over time, and (2) the returns to farm resources are too low. The rather substantial variability of farm prices and incomes from crops and from a number of livestock products has been substantiated. The extensive work done by T. W. Schultz (1945) may be noted. In the absence of government programs, farm prices have varied over time as a result of changes in the level of business activity, variations in the output of individual crops, and substantial annual variations in the output produced on individual farms. For many farm products the intrayear variations in prices have also been very large.

The basic sources of the instability of farm prices and incomes can be briefly noted. First, the price elasticity of demand for farm products is low. Thus, for any given demand situation, a small variation in the quantity supplied can result in a much larger and opposite variation in price. Second, in the short run, the elasticity of supply of farm products is very low. In any given country, crops are produced in a given season and the output available for sale for the entire year is determined in a relatively short period of time. Consequently, most of the effect of a change in demand will be felt in price changes, rather than in changes in the quantity offered for sale. Third, production decisions often must be made several months or a year before the product is available for sale. If the price expectations underlying the production decisions turn out to be inaccurate, large changes in prices and income may result. Finally, many farmers live in areas where there are substantial year-to-year climatic variations—the Great Plains of North America, for example. The yield of a given crop on a farm may vary from nothing to two or three times the long-run average yield. At least for the major industrial countries, it appears that instability of demand has been much less important as a source of price instability since World War II than in the years before.

In an economy with rising per capita incomes, it is almost certain that the return to farm labor will be less than the return to comparable labor elsewhere in the economy. In such an economy, a transfer of labor resources from agricultural to nonagricultural occupations is almost certain to occur. The transfer will occur if two phenomena exist: (1) if the income elasticity of demand for farm products is less than unity, and (2) if technological change or other forces result in rising output per unit of labor and land engaged in agriculture.

The existence of the required transfer and its magnitude depend upon the income elasticity of demand for farm products and the relative rate of change in productivity in agriculture compared to the rest of the economy. After an economy has reached a level of per capita income approximating $100 (United States), the income elasticity of demand for farm products is significantly less than unity. Thus the demand for farm products will increase less rapidly than the demand for nonfarm products, since the income elasticity of demand for all output is unity. If it were not possible to increase resource productivity in agriculture, resource transfers out of agriculture would not be necessary, since, with a positive income elasticity of demand, the absolute demand for farm products would grow with rising per capita income. However, the history of the industrial nations indicates that technological and other changes that increase productivity are of roughly the same significance in agriculture as in the rest of the economy.

No nation that has had significant increases in real per capita income has been able to avoid a decline in the share of its total labor force engaged in agriculture. In the past century, the percentage of all workers engaged in agriculture in the United States has declined from about 60 per cent to about 8 per cent; since 1940, farm employment has decreased from 9.4 million to 5.0 million. Since the end of World War II, farm employment has declined by approximately 30 per cent in western Europe.

A decline in the percentage of the labor force engaged in agriculture is one of the adjustments required as a result of increasing real incomes. It is a reflection of the fact that as people become richer they desire to spend a smaller fraction of their income for food and other farm products. It is also an indication that the forces that make it possible for the economy as a whole to enjoy higher incomes—increased capital, new knowledge, and a better educated labor force—are also operative in agriculture.

But, as noted above, one of the consequences of the forces that caused the decline in the relative and absolute employment in agriculture is that the return to farm labor is less than the return to comparable labor elsewhere in the economy. Thus, there is an incentive for young people born on farms to choose another occupation; for most farm youth, this implies leaving the home community and migrating to an urban community.

The size of the differential in income associated with the transfer of labor from agriculture to the rest of the economy appears to vary a great deal from country to country. It appears to be quite large in the United States and Canada—perhaps as much as a quarter or a third—and substantially smaller in France and England.

Remedial techniques

Price and income policies generally have one of two objectives, although sometimes both objectives are pursued simultaneously. One objective is the stabilization of the level of farm prices or incomes; the other objective is the increasing of the level of farm prices or incomes. The latter objective may also seek to increase output, or the end may be primarily the improvement of the income position of farm families, with any output effects being unintended. The price and income policies followed in Great Britain since the end of World War II have had the increasing of output as one of their major objectives. Over the same period of time, the policies in the United States have attempted to use price and income measures as a means of increasing farm incomes, and programs were devised to offset the output effects of the higher prices and incomes.

The techniques that have been used to increase or stabilize farm prices fall into a number of categories; frequently several techniques may be used in combination. The principal techniques include output control, storage financed by loans or government purchase, deficiency payments, import controls, and export subsidies. The main features of the wheat program of the United States in 1963 were approximately the same as the programs followed for several major crops during the previous decade and may be used as an example. The total area sown to wheat was limited to fifty million acres; each farmer who grew wheat was allocated a specific acreage based upon previous area seeded. When the wheat was harvested the farmer had the choice of selling his wheat on the market or of obtaining a nonrecourse loan from the Commodity Credit Corporation. The meaning of the term “nonrecourse loan” is that the farmer could deliver his wheat in full payment of the loan even if the market price of the wheat were below the amount loaned to him. The general idea of this loan program was that enough farmers would place their wheat in storage to increase the market price to approximately the loan rate, which was $2.00 per bushel in 1963.

The production of wheat in the United States in recent years has been approximately double the domestic use for food, feed, and seed. As the domestic price averaged about $0.65 per bushel more than the price received by exporters abroad, any sales of wheat in foreign markets required an export subsidy of about that amount. However, even with an export subsidy, sales in regular commercial export markets were equal to about half the excess of production over domestic use. The remainder of the wheat, plus some additional amount to reduce the relatively large stocks held by the Commodity Credit Corporation, was disposed of as a part of the United States foreign economic assistance program. The wheat was sold for local currencies, with no anticipation that payment would be made later in dollars. Most of the local currencies have been, or will be, returned to the nations receiving the wheat, although some have been used to cover United States expenditures in the recipient nations.

One consequence of the price support programs that resulted in domestic prices in excess of world market prices has been the necessity to control the importation of the farm products involved. Again using wheat as an example, for almost three decades there has been an import quota that prohibits the importation of more than a few thousand bushels of wheat or its equivalent in flour.

In the United Kingdom, which is an important importer of wheat, price supports for wheat have been maintained by deficiency payments. The deficiency payment to the farmer represents the difference between the guaranteed price and the average market price for the year. In this system, imports are allowed to enter the country freely; and because there is no tariff on wheat, the price paid by consumers represents the lowest price at which wheat is available from anywhere in the world.

In West Germany, which also imports wheat, the government establishes a target price for wheat. The target price is a threshold price at the major ports (the target price minus transport costs to the major interior markets). On any wheat that is imported from outside the European Economic Community, a variable levy is imposed, equal to the difference between the threshold price and the average price of wheat offered for sale by exporters. Thus, the price at which imported wheat is available to German millers does not vary; a decline in the exporter’s offering price is offset by an equal increase in the variable levy. The variable levy, which is a major instrument of the common agricultural policy of the European Economic Community, is a modern version of the English corn laws of the early nineteenth century.

The price and income programs of most nations have included measures other than increasing the prices received by farmers. In the United States, various payments are made directly to farmers for carrying out certain farm practices, such as terracing, tiling, liming, and the planting of cover crops. Substantial payments have also been made for diverting land from productive use. In the United Kingdom, subsidies have been paid for the use of fertilizers and limes, for drainage, for the ploughing up of land, and for the production of cattle in hill regions. In West Germany, payments have been made for reduction of fertilizer prices, for improvement of farm buildings, and for land consolidation and enlargement of farms.

Determination of price support levels

The determination of the price support level varies from country to country. In the United States, an attempt was made in the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 to specify an objective criterion. This criterion was called the parity price, which was the price of an agricultural commodity that would give the same purchasing power, in terms of the goods and services purchased by the farmer for production and living, that the commodity had in 1910-1914. Thus the price received per bushel of wheat during 1910-1914 was 88 cents; if prices paid by farmers doubled, the parity price would be $1.76 per bushel. Price supports, however, were never established at 100 per cent of parity. During the 1930s, support prices were established in the general range of 50 per cent to 70 per cent of parity; it was not until World War II that price supports were established at 90 per cent of parity.

The specific definition of parity was changed on several occasions; for example, property taxes and wage rates for hired workers were added to the prices-paid index. One serious objection to the concept was that demand and supply conditions change over time and that the relative prices of agricultural products that prevailed in 1910-1914 did not fit the circumstances four decades later. An important modification was introduced in 1948, when the relative parity prices were determined by the average prices received by farmers during the previous ten years. However, since the revision in the formula resulted in the reduction of parity prices for “politically important crops,” primarily wheat and corn, the revised formula did not become fully effective for certain crops for almost a decade.

Other nations have not adopted such specific and rigid concepts as parity prices to define their farm price objectives. In the United Kingdom, the price objective was defined in the Agriculture Act of 1947 as “promoting and maintaining a stable and efficient agricultural industry capable of producing such part of the nation’s food and other agricultural produce as in the national interest it is desirable to produce in the United Kingdom, and of producing it at minimum prices consistent with proper remuneration and living conditions for farmers and workers in agriculture and an adequate return on capital invested in the industry.” In West Germany, the Agricultural Act of 1955 had the objective of providing the same return to agricultural labor on properly managed holdings of average production conditions as to wage earners in comparable nonagricultural occupations in rural areas; additional criteria included adequate reward to managerial activity and capital in agriculture.

Effects of price and income policies

The agricultural price and income measures of the industrial countries have a number of consequences, some intended and some unintended, that merit examination. The major intended effect is to increase the level of return to resources engaged in agriculture. Other important areas of effect are output consequences, cost to consumers, cost to taxpayers, and international trade.

Resource and output effects. Of the various effects, the one that is subject to the most dispute is the return to resources engaged in agriculture. The intent of the governments that enact and administer agricultural price and income measures is to increase the return to farm labor, land, and capital. There is considerable dispute among economists about the effects of higher prices and other income measures upon the return to farm labor. One school of thought argues that the increase in net income resulting from an increase in farm product prices is of almost the same absolute size as the increase in gross farm income. Another school of thought argues that the effect of a given increase in product prices upon the average return to farm resources depends on the characteristics of the production function and the elasticity of supply of the various farm resources.

The basic assumption of the first school is that farmers do not adjust the level of output in response to changes in the average level of all product prices. Following an increase in product prices, production expenditures, except for purchases from other farms, remain essentially the same. Since production expenses in modern agriculture constitute half or more of gross income, a change in gross income of 10 per cent would result in a change of net farm income of more than 20 per cent, if the stated assumption were correct.

The above approach to the effects of changes in product prices upon the returns to farm resources is inconsistent with the expected result derived from the application of modern price and production theory, unless the elasticity of supply of agricultural output is, in fact, zero.

In brief summary, price and production theory implies the following consequences from an increase in farm product prices: (1) farm output would increase; (2) more inputs or resources would be used; (3) total payments to nonfarm resources—fertilizer, gasoline, feed supplements, machinery—would increase; and (4) the relative increase in factor prices will vary inversely with their elasticities of supply. Whether the increase in the return to farmer-owned resources—the labor of the operator and his family and his owned capital and land—will increase more than, the same as, or less than the increase in product prices depends upon the conditions of production and the elasticities of factor supply.

Some of the above implications are directly derivable from the formula [l/(s+l)][l+e], in which s is the elasticity of supply for a factor and e is the elasticity of supply of output. The above formula is based upon the assumption that the elasticity of substitution among inputs is unity; if the elasticity of substitution varies between 0.5 and 2.0, the results are affected only slightly.

The implications of the formula can be illustrated by assuming that government action results in an increase of product price by 10 per cent. Let us assume that the elasticity of supply of output is 0.1. If the elasticity of factor supply is zero, which, in the short run, may be approximately true of land, the return to land (rent) will increase by 11 per cent. If the elasticity of supply for an input is 10, which might be the case for fertilizer, the increase in price would be about 1 per cent. If the elasticity of factor supply is 0.25, which might represent all labor used in agriculture, the increase in the return to labor would be 9 per cent. If the elasticity of factor supply is unity, the increase in factor price would be between 5 per cent and 6 per cent. If the elasticity of factor supply is equal, or greater than, the output elasticity, the increase in factor price will be less than the increase in product price.

It is almost certain that land will be the input that will gain most from an increase in product price due to government action. It is also most unlikely that the increase in the return to labor will be greater than the increase in product price.

The above results can be put differently. A significant fraction of the cost of the higher prices will be required to pay for additional inputs; of the increase in net returns to farm resources, the largest percentage increase will go to the owners of land.

The effects of changes in product prices upon the return to resources are affected only slightly if output is controlled by reducing the quantity of one of the inputs, such as land. The major effect of limiting the quantity of one of the inputs that may be used is to reduce the level of output somewhat and thus perhaps to reduce the governmental costs of the effort to increase product prices.

In the short run, the formula given above may not apply. This is true because the change in prices may not be fully anticipated or, if anticipated, complete adjustment is not possible. For example, in the United States between 1948 and 1949, farm prices received decreased by 12.5 per cent, and net farm income per capita declined 22.5 per cent; between 1950 and 1951, prices increased by 6 per cent, and net farm income per capita increased 11 per cent. However, if periods of somewhat greater length are compared, the formula appears to be supported by changes that can be observed in prices and incomes. Between 1945-1948 and 1949-1953, farm prices decreased by 11 per cent and farm income per capita by 10.5 per cent; between 1949-1953 and 1954-1958, farm prices decreased by 13 per cent and farm income per capita by 5 per cent.

The United States has been the only major industrial country that has followed a conscious policy of attempting to restrict farm production. However, the effectiveness of the programs followed—restriction of land cultivated for certain crops—is subject to debate. First, it is possible to substitute other inputs for land—more fertilizer, labor, machinery, herbicides, and insecticides. The higher prices that have been associated with the reduction in land cultivated have encouraged such substitutions. Second, the relative importance of land, as a factor of production, is relatively small in modern agriculture. In the United States, at present, land, including buildings used for production, accounts for about 15 per cent of all farm resources. If the elasticity of substitution between land and all other inputs is unity, a 20 per cent reduction in land use (which has never been achieved in the United States) would cause farm output to decline no more than 4 per cent or 5 per cent. Third, while the United States has attempted to reduce farm output by reducing cultivated land, it has simultaneously had subsidized farm credit. In addition, there has been an effective research and education program to improve farm efficiency and, thus, production. On balance, it appears most unlikely that the United States has reduced farm production by government programs, and it is probable that the higher prices have resulted in an increase in the level of production.

Costs of programs. The total costs of efforts to increase farm prices as a means of increasing farm incomes have proven to be very substantial in the major industrial nations. These costs take several forms, depending upon the particular methods adopted for increasing returns to farmers. In the United Kingdom, where the policy has been to allow prices in consumer markets to clear the markets, the major costs have represented subsidies paid to farmers. These subsidies have taken two forms: (1) a payment to farmers equal to the difference between the guaranteed price and the market price, and (2) production subsidies for such items as fertilizer and lime or for improvements of buildings and other structures. In West Germany, the costs have included relatively high prices for consumers, payments for improving the quality and marketing of milk, payments for enlargement of farms and improvement of farm buildings, and subsidies to reduce the cost of certain farm inputs (principally fertilizer and petroleum products).

In the United States, the cost of the farm price programs have included payments to induce farmers to withdraw part of their land from cultivation, payments for land improvements, export subsidies to compensate for the difference in domestic and foreign prices, and storage costs—as well as higher prices to domestic consumers. In the United States, storage costs of commodities acquired by the government in its efforts to maintain market prices near some specified level have been a significant element in the total costs of the farm price support program. In recent years, for example, if the cost of storage for wheat owned by the government is calculated on a first-in-first-out basis, the cost of accumulated storage is greater than the amount received by the farmer for the wheat.

International trade effects. The efforts on the part of governments to increase farm prices and incomes have major implications for international trade in farm products. The nations that increase prices to consumers restrict consumption of farm products. If the nations are importers of farm products, the volume and value of imports are reduced. If the nations are exporters, the quantity of products available for export is increased, and export subsidies are often used to increase the quantity of farm products exported. Equally important, the methods used to increase farm incomes—higher prices and production subsidies— also increase farm production in the industrial countries. In a nation that normally imports part of its food supply, the net effect is to reduce the demand for imports. An exporting country is faced with the necessity of increasing exports.

One of the important, but often ignored, consequences of the farm income programs of the industrial nations is the effects upon the export possibilities of underdeveloped areas. By reducing consumption through higher prices to consumers and by increasing farm output by higher prices and various subsidies, the industrial nations have reduced the export potentials of underdeveloped areas. While it is true that many of the tropical farm products produced by underdeveloped areas are not produced in the industrial countries, there is competition at both the production and consumption level. In production, the industrial countries compete in rice, fats and oils, and sugar. In addition, subsidized exports, often under the guise of foreign aid, reduce the market for domestically produced food products, especially the grains, in the recipient countries.

Alternatives

The price and income policies described above have numerous and serious disadvantages, higher prices to consumers, large treasury costs, increased farm output, and restraint on the potential gains from international specialization; but perhaps the most serious limitation is that there is no evidence that the income gaps that exist between farm and nonfarm families have narrowed as a result of these programs. At best, it can be argued that the income differentials are generally narrower than would have been the case if the various nations had not pursued these policies. But this proposition has not been demonstrated in any systematic way, despite the billions of dollars spent each year on these programs by the industrial nations.

One of the consequences of economic growth is a decline in farm employment, first relatively and later absolutely. A major factor, although not the only one, in the observed differences in the incomes of farm and nonfarm workers is that many farm people must continually shift to nonfarm jobs. No developing country has been able to avoid this transfer. Yet there are very few instances where the necessity for the labor transfer has been recognized as an element that needed to be considered in developing agricultural income programs.

While it is probably true that the policies followed by the industrial nations have not held a significant amount of labor in agriculture—in most countries significant income differentials have persisted—the programs can be criticized on two grounds. First, most countries have had programs that have encouraged farmers to make additional investments in land improvements, buildings, fertilizer, and machinery. These increased investments, where not justified by their returns, have reduced the demand for farm labor and depressed the returns to farm labor. Second, the programs have failed to aid farm people in making the adjustment that economic growth required, namely the transfer from farm to nonfarm occupations. If the funds invested in farm price supports and production and investment subsidies had been used for rural education, training of adult farm workers for nonfarm jobs, improving employment information, and subsidies for labor transfers, the returns to farm resources would be no lower than they now are. Furthermore, the adjustments that the agricultures of all industrial nations face would by now be much smaller in magnitude.

The transfer of workers from agriculture to the rest of the economy is influenced, of course, by the state of employment in the economy as a whole. If there is an active labor market, the transfer can occur more rapidly and more easily than if there is serious unemployment. With some exception for Canada and the United States, most of the major industrial countries have not had high unemployment rates for the past two decades. In the United States, during the years 1960-1962, when unemployment rates averaged almost 6 per cent, the annual migration from the farms averaged 5 per cent of the farm population. And this was in a setting in which little was done by government to aid the transfer and employment opportunities were relatively limited.

I should note that there is not general agreement among agricultural economists that it is possible to remove the disequilibria in agriculture by assisting the transfer of labor out of agriculture. Heady (1962) has argued that while it is desirable to do all that can be done to make the elasticity of supply of farm labor as large as possible, technological change and the substitution of other inputs for labor will make it difficult, if not impossible, to increase the returns to farm labor to a satisfactory level, unless the amount of land used in agriculture is also reduced. Heady’s conclusion implies that the long-run elasticity of substitution between labor and other inputs, given the existing supply of land, is very high, and large changes in the quantity of labor will not have much influence upon the marginal returns to labor. However, if the elasticity of substitution between land and purchased inputs is also very great, reducing the amount of land used in agriculture would also have little effect upon output, product prices, or the marginal return to labor.

The questions posed by the previous paragraph are questions of fact. Unfortunately, we do not yet have the research that could clearly substantiate one view or the other.

D. Gale Johnson

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Benedict, Murray R. 1953 Farm Policies of the United States, 1790-1950: A Study of Their Origins and Development. New York: Twentieth Century Fund.

Benedict, Murray R.; and Stine, Oscar C. 1956 The Agricultural Commodity Programs: Two Decades of Experience. New York: Twentieth Century Fund.

Cochrane, Willard W. 1965 The City Man’s Guide to the Farm Problem. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press.

Hathaway, Dale E. 1963 Government and Agriculture: Public Policy in a Democratic Society. New York: Macmillan.

Heady, Earl O. 1962 Agricultural Policy Under Economic Development. Ames: Iowa State Univ. Press.

Johnson, D. gale 1947 Forward Prices for Agriculture.Univ. of Chicago Press.

Mccrone, Gavin 1962 The Economics of Subsidizing Agriculture: A Study of British Policy. London: Allen & Unwin. Nicholson, Joseph S. 1904 The History of the English Corn Laws. New York: Scribner.

Organizationfor European Economic Cooperation 1961 Trends in Agricultural Policies Since 1955. Fifth Report on Agricultural Policies in Europe and North America. Paris: The Organization.

Schultz, Theodore W. 1945 Agriculture in an Unstable Economy. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tontz, Robert L. (editor) 1966 Foreign Agricultural Trade: Selected Readings. Ames: Iowa State Univ. Press.

Tracy, Michael 1964 Agriculture in Western Europe. London: Cape; New York: Praeger.

X DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Most typically, agricultural activity in developing countries is carried on by persons who combine in a single household the functions of managing and providing labor for a settled farm. This type of agriculture may be called peasant farming. The definition includes a vast number of farmers who have very similar economic problems and who produce much of the world’s food and fiber. The definition excludes both the farm laborer who has virtually no decision-making power and the specialized farm manager who does little or no manual labor. It also excludes large corporate, state, and collectivized farms, as well as plantations. (The latter, in particular, are important in a number of developing nations.) On such farms the functional division into manager and laborer is usually accompanied by sharp social distinctions as well. The practitioner of shifting cultivation is also excluded from this definition of peasantry. Shifting cultivation occupies a large area in many developing countries, but because of its extensive nature, it accounts for only a small proportion of agricultural production. [seeagriculture, article onproduction; COMMUNISM, Economic organization of, article onagriculture; plantations. For discussion of shifting agriculture, seeagriculture, article oncomparative technology; andasian society, article onsoutheast asia.]

The peasant farmer occupies an intermediate position on the continuum between agricultural laborer and specialized manager. Thus, the definition of a peasant farmer is necessarily arbitrary at its edges. On the one hand, farm laborers may own small pieces of land which they till and about which they make management decisions. On the other hand, some peasants operate such large farms that they in fact participate little in laboring and serve largely as specialized managers. Nevertheless, there is sufficient homogeneity of economic problems and decision-making responsibility included in this definition to make it operationally useful.

Peasant farming includes a wide range of economic conditions, since both the largely subsistence farmer characteristic of much of Asia and the highly commercialized family farmer of North America combine the farm-labor and farm-management functions in the same household. The peasant or family farm in the dynamic high-income economies is discussed in other articles in this group. The emphasis of this article will be on the peasant farmer in the context of a relatively traditional economy.

The complexity of executive management required and the necessity of day-to-day decisions under highly varied conditions give considerable advantage to the family-size farm and explain the dominance of the peasant farm in the world’s agriculture. Farms with large labor forces and a sharp division between management and labor are largely limited to special situations: where integrated operations offer special marketing advantages; where other services having major economies of scale, such as research, must be rendered on each individual farm; or where special problems of handling unskilled labor arise. Most of the farming in the United States is still basically family farming, even though the American farmer is competent in a highly advanced technology, is highly commercialized, and uses large amounts of capital and land.

As broadly defined, peasant agriculture dominates the low-income economies of much of Asia and to a large extent those of Africa and Latin America as well. In these areas peasant agriculture often produces over half of the national income and absorbs well over half of the nation’s population. The future course of food production for growing populations and, in early stages of development, the future rate of increase in per-capita national income itself depend in important part upon production trends in the dominant peasantfarming sector (Johnston & Mellor 1961). With recognition of the critical role of peasant agriculture in economic development, substantial research and policy attention is directed to analysis of the means of development of this sector of the economy.

Means of increasing production

Peasant agriculture has two characteristics that distinguish it sharply from other sectors of the economy in the development process.

First, early in development, peasant agriculture already commands the economy’s basic stock of land, labor, and capital, which it uses at low levels of productivity. Thus, for this sector the problem of development is not so much one of raising a large stock of new resources, as is the case for much new industry, but one of how to make the existing stock of resources more productive. Peasant agriculture thus offers substantial opportunity for rapid increase in production through increasing the productivity of existing resources, but concurrently it presents major problems of inertia in changing an existing system.

The second distinguishing characteristic of the peasant-farming sector is that it consists of a large number of heterogeneous small-scale units of production. This creates problems of communication and of rendering production-related services. Although the farming operation itself offers few economies of scale beyond a family-size operation, many of the services, such as research, education, transport, and so on, which are associated with high-productivity agriculture, do offer major economies of scale. If peasant agriculture is to develop, devices must be found for providing such services to literally millions of small-scale farming units. The problems to be met and the inertia in the existing system seriously retard the development process.

Four quite different approaches are currently proposed as means of increasing production in a peasant agriculture. They differ in the extent to which they require increased allocation of scarce resources from other sectors of the economy and in the implicit level of returns such resources are expected to receive from their use in agriculture.

First, it is argued that peasant farmers in traditional economies use the resources currently at their disposal inefficiently. It then follows that systematic study of resource utilization will provide the basis for reorganizing agriculture with a consequent increase in production. However, increasingly it is recognized that, given their environment, peasant farmers in fact operate rather efficiently and that major increases in production cannot be expected from this source (Schultz 1964).

Second, it is argued that traditional peasant agriculture contains a large stock of idle labor and even land resources that may be brought into production. However, it is now being recognized that although such idle stocks of resources do occur, their productivity, with current technology, is too low to make them meaningful to either individual peasants or to society as a whole (Mellor 1963).

Third, it is argued that increased production in peasant agriculture requires heavy input of capital and other resources of a largely traditional type in the form of land-reclamation schemes, major irrigation projects, and large-scale machinery. However, experience to date indicates that returns on this kind of investment in peasant agriculture are generally low unless major changes in technology occur simultaneously.

Fourth, it is argued that increased production may be achieved largely on the basis of the existing set of traditional resources through introducing technological change, which raises the productivity of existing resources and concurrently attracts idle resources into production. Such technological change, of course, has a cost and involves a number of planning problems. The approach has been successful in many high-income countries, including most notably Japan.

The relative merits of these several positions will become clearer in the succeeding discussion of the economics of traditional peasant agriculture and its modernization.

The resource base

The family labor force is the basic labor unit of peasant agriculture. Farms in the United States normally have a labor force equivalent to two full-time persons, and that typical size has not changed significantly for decades. The typical farm in India and Indonesia also has roughly a two-man labor force. Of course, the extent to which other resources are combined with labor, the extent to which the labor force is fully occupied, and the size of income accruing to that labor force differs greatly from one peasant agriculture to another.

Typically, in traditional economies there are large stocks of idle labor during much of the year, and in some peasant agricultures there is a stock of idle labor even at seasonal peaks of labor requirements. The productivity of labor in traditional peasant agricultures is low. Typically an increment of a man-day of labor in India provides the basis for only an additional 20 to 40 cents increment to production. Such a return provides little incentive for either full or efficient utilization of labor.

The size of the land resource per peasant family differs greatly from one situation to another. In a high-income country the family farmer may command hundreds of acres of land. In India peasant farmers typically command only five or ten acres. In Japan peasant farms are even smaller, averaging only about two acres per farm.

As in the case of labor, there is great variability in the production that is drawn from an acre of land. Japanese farmers gain several times as much production per acre as do Indian farmers. And the differences are more matters of technological stage than inherent productivity of the land. Typically in peasant agricultures of low-income countries yields per acre are very low compared to what is expected from similar land in a high-income nation.

The capital resource per peasant family also ranges widely—from the tens of thousands of dollars of nonland capital of a family farm in the United States to the mere tens of dollars of capital of a peasant farm in a low-income country. In India nonland capital typically consists of a team of bullocks worth $100-$200 and perhaps only $50 worth of tools. In many low-income countries working livestock is not common, and nonland capital, therefore, includes only a few dollars’ worth of hand tools. In such agricultures the major opportunity for capital formation within agriculture is in the form of improvements to land, such as wells, land leveling, fencing, and so on. Since these forms of investment are largely a direct embodiment of labor, the returns on them tend also to be driven to low levels.

Technology in the form of improved plant and livestock varieties and advanced production practices is one of the most important resources of high-income peasant agricultures. The peasant agricultures of low-income parts of the world lack such technology, and its provision represents a key aspect of the process of modernization.

The economic efficiency of resource use

Resource productivity in the peasant agriculture of traditional economies tends to be low, in the sense that output per unit of input of resources is low. However, the economic efficiency with which resources are used in peasant agricultures is generally quite high, in the sense that with the given objectives of peasant farmers a simple reorganization of resources within the present environment will not provide a substantial increase in production. This distinction is important because if economic efficiency is already high, then an increase in productivity requires a change in the environment within which decisions are made, rather than just a process of education.

Carefully drawn empirical studies of resource efficiency, which recognize the objectives of peasant farming, generally show peasant farmers to be combining inputs and production objectives in close to an optimal pattern (Schultz 1964; Tax 1953; Jones 1960). The objectives of a family enterprise such as a peasant farm may be complex and may certainly include, in addition to money income, consideration of the value of family time for leisure and other nonmonetary uses. Peasant farmers are not alone in introducing broad objectives into their economizing decisions.

Peasant farmers face two basic types of management decisions: those concerned with factor combinations (the intensity with which factors of production are used) and those concerned with the combination of enterprises (the output mix).

No farmer faces a completely static environment, although in a traditional peasant agriculture the decision-making environment changes relatively slowly. Even in a traditional peasant agriculture, population growth increases the availability of labor and pressures on income, calling for adjustment of labor input and product output. Occasional changes in technology, such as cultivation practices, or in water availability provide opportunity for new combinations of input and output. Occasionally the physical environment itself changes, with new insect and disease problems changing factor costs and returns. And even if agriculture itself is not dynamic, changes in incomes and tastes in other sectors may bring about price changes, which in turn change the relative profitability of alternative cropping patterns. Particularly if incomes are already low, peasant farmers must adjust effectively to many of these changes.

As economic development and the modernization of agriculture occur, changes in the decision-making environment become more rapid, and the pressure on the decision-making ability of peasant farmers increases substantially. In a traditional agriculture peasants may maintain efficiency by slow evolution of a trial-and-error nature. With modernization, decision making must become much more systematic and rapid. Thus, the relatively high level of economic efficiency in traditional peasant economies probably shows more about the simplicity and static nature of their environment than about the excellence of their decision-making ability.

Three special features of peasant farming in low-income countries may give the appearance of economic inefficiency. They are discussed below:

Variability in economic efficiency. Studies that demonstrate peasant farmers to be, on the average, in good economic adjustment with their environment normally include considerable variability around that average. It is usually not clear to what extent such variability arises because many peasant farmers are not in optimal economic adjustment and to what extent the environment itself differs significantly from one farmer to another. Certainly the latter is true in part. Soils and other physical features differ widely even within small areas, so that the optimal organization and combination of factors will vary from one farm to another. A gross study is not likely to make the necessary adjustments in all the data. Perhaps even more important, costs of labor and capital differ substantially from one farm to another. Farms with relatively more land per family member may feel less pressure to squeeze the last bit of gross income out of the farm through more use of labor, and thus they in effect act as though labor were more expensive to them than to other farmers (Mellor 1963). Likewise, such farmers, because of their higher incomes, have effectively lower costs of capital. Such variation in labor and capital costs may be greater than in the high-income nation where resources may be more freely mobile. As a result, greater variability in farm organization and operation may occur in traditional, as compared to modern, peasant-type agricultures.

Peasant conservatism. Farmers in low-income countries tend to be conservative. That is, they weigh risks and uncertainty heavily in making decisions. In addition, certain types of risks may in fact be greater in a traditional agriculture. Judged by standards that presume no risk, farmers in such a situation may appear out of adjustment. Risks of importance occur in regard to weather, prices, and technology.

Because peasant farmers in low-income countries have low incomes and relatively fixed consumption patterns, they tend to attach a very high value to achieving the normal pattern of income and relatively less value to comparable increments in excess of the normal pattern. Thus, peasant farmers in a traditional agriculture often choose a cropping pattern that provides little variability in production over a wide range of weather conditions, even though it may provide somewhat less on the average or in total over a period of years. Such organization may appear inefficient if the peasant’s weighing of risk and uncertainty is not recognized. Peasants may react to new price relationships in the same manner. Even more important, peasant farmers may be slow to accept technological change because of the risks involved.

It should be clearly noted that in a traditional peasant agriculture, which does not have institutions for developing and testing innovation, long experience has shown that innovation generally does not pay. Conservatism in such a situation has important survival value, particularly if peasant farmers are living close to the subsistence margin. In such circumstances a society may institutionalize conservatism by placing decision-making power in the hands of the older members of the family and community who have learned from observation to move very cautiously into anything new. Such institutionalization of conservatism is valuable in a traditional economy. However, it slows progress toward a modern agriculture in which there are institutional means for developing and testing innovation so as to reduce its risk and increase its profitability. In any case, conservatism will in the short run cause farmers to be out of adjustment with a dynamic environment.

Subsistence-mindedness. Peasant farmers may be in significant part subsistence-minded—attaching special value to crops and livestock produced for home use relative to production for sale. Individual peasants may thus appear out of economic adjustment and unresponsive to price changes. In general, however, peasant farmers are not completely rigid in following production patterns that favor subsistence commodities. The apparent inflexibility arises from two sources, the first a matter of price relationships and the second a matter of risk and uncertainty.

In deciding upon relative emphasis on subsistence crops, farmers compare the farm price of crops they will sell and the retail price for crops they are to buy. Since marketing costs may provide a significant difference between these prices, there will be a range of prices within which individual farmers will not respond to changes in price. The effect of this will be to reduce the average extent of response of supply to changes in price relationships at retail.

This tendency will be increased by farmer reaction to risk and uncertainty. It is of great importance to peasant farmers that they be able to supply their subsistence needs. It happens that in most low-income countries there are great seasonal and year-to-year fluctuations in market prices and in market availability of food crops. As a result, farmers fear that if they produce certain crops for sale and then later buy subsistence crops on the market, they will be caught purchasing at a time of seasonally or cyclically high prices or low supply. This simply means that farmers would structure production to given price relationships if those prices were certain, but with price uncertainty they will give added favor to production for subsistence needs. Such behavior is inefficient only by the use of inappropriate measures.

Price responsiveness of peasant farmers. Given similar physical conditions, peasant farmers in a traditional agriculture tend to be as responsive to change in the relationship among farm prices as farmers in more modern agricultures, or even more so. This is documented by a number of careful studies of price behavior in peasant agricultures of Asia (Krishna 1963; Falcon 1964). This is not surprising, since peasant farmers in a traditional agriculture use forms of labor and capital which are quite flexible in production—in contrast with peasant farms in high-income agricultures, where capital tends to be highly specific in, say, cottonpicking machines, which will not harvest wheat, and in technical know-how regarding, say, onions, which is not transferable to beets. It is this flexibility of resource use in traditional agricultures that permits a substantial response to changes in price relationships.

On the other hand, peasant farmers in low-income economies tend to alter the aggregate level of agricultural production relatively little in response to price changes. This is because they operate in an agriculture using largely fixed resources, such as land and family labor, and use little of such purchased variable inputs as fertilizer. In addition, labor is relatively immobile, with little opportunity to move in and out of agriculture. Thus, there is little opportunity to vary the quantity of resources in production in response to change in the over-all level of prices for agricultural commodities. Occasionally, higher prices may pull additional labor into production from idle stocks. However, in a traditional agriculture the tendency for that to happen on some farms may be counterbalanced by the tendency on some other farms for income incentives to be satisfied with less work at higher prices, causing a perverse response of labor input to price.

Peasant response to new technology. There are many examples of peasant farmers in traditional agriculture who quickly adopt an innovation that is profitable under their conditions. Earlier exposition suggests that they may be cautious in decisions regarding change; but this is not because they are not economically motivated, but because they know from experience of the risks involved. However, even on this count the stereotype of peasant conservatism tends to be overstated. It must be remembered that there is normally considerable variability in size of farm and income among peasant farmers in a given community. The operators of the larger farms are well able to experiment and to accept some risk—and to a surprising extent experimentation does occur. All too often what is interpreted as a reluctance toward change is in fact no more than good sense on the part of peasants in rejecting innovation that under their conditions is unprofitable (Herdt & Mellor 1964).

The requisites for modernization

Modernization of peasant agriculture does not require change in its basic structure. Peasant agriculture is well suited to modernization, and peasant farmers are already reacting in an economically rational way to their environment. What is needed to bring about decisions that will increase production and incomes is to change the environment within which peasant farmers make decisions. That is largely a matter of institutional change. And although it is true that major increases in production require a complex reformation of institutions, it is often the case that only one or two sets of institutions are limiting at a specific time. The following sets of institutional changes are set forth in the order in which they are most likely to be limiting (Mellor 1963).

In some peasant agricultures land tenure and other arrangements may be repressive and hence discouraging to income-increasing innovation, because the landlords or others appropriate an undue proportion of gains, while letting the risk and uncertainty and the cost of added inputs fall on the peasant farmer. Land reform and related institutional changes may be needed [seeland tenure].

If efficiency is to increase, a prime requisite is new technology. This is rarely transferable directly from one region to another, hence peasant agriculture must be supported by a program of research. Research institutions need to be centrally provided. This is often the source of unfavorable contrast between peasant agriculture and plantations or other large-scale methods of farming. The latter tend to have their own experiment stations. Peasants in traditional agriculture do not. In high-income agricultures of Europe, North America, and Japan the state has provided such facilities to family farmers, with a salutary effect on production and incomes.

Much technological change is based on new forms of inputs, particularly improved seeds and fertilizers. These require new lines of production and distribution. Traditional peasant agriculture can improve very little until these lines are opened and developed.

As innovation becomes more complex, educational institutions are required to teach farmers to use complex innovation and to handle increasingly complex decisions more rapidly.

Eventually, improved credit facilities are needed. Initially this may be less important than is sometimes thought. Innovations in early stages of development normally have cash costs sufficiently low for current income to provide the basis for adequate capital formation, at least on the larger farms. As innovation requires more and more purchased inputs, credit problems may increase [seecredit, article onagricultural credit].

Likewise, increased marketing efficiency may be important in modernization, particularly when output combinations change or bulky perishable products are produced in much larger quantity.

The key to modernization of traditional peasant agricultures is to provide institutions for facilitating the development and application of technological advance, thereby increasing the productivity of the existing stock of resources. The economic returns to such an effort tend to be high.

John W. Mellor

[See alsoAgriculture, articles oncapital, labor, andmarketing. ]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Clark, Colin; and Haswell, M. R. 1964 The Economics of Subsistence Agriculture. London: Macmillan; New York: St. Martins.

Dewey, Alice G. 1962 Peasant Marketing in Java. New York: Free Press.

Edwards, David 1961 Report on an Economic Study of Small Farming in Jamaica. Kingston: Univ. College of the West Indies, Institute of Social and Economic Research.

Falcon, Walter P. 1964 Farmer Response to Price in a Subsistence Economy: The Case of West Pakistan. American Economic Review 54:580-591.

Firth, Raymond; and Yamey, B. S. (editors) 1964 Capital, Savings, and Credit in Peasant Societies: Studies From Asia, Oceania, the Caribbean and Middle America. London: Allen & Unwin.

Herdt, Robert W.; and Mellor, John W. 1964 The Contrasting Response of Rice to Nitrogen: India and the United States. Journal of Farm Economics 46: 150-160.

Johnston, Bruce F.; and Mellor, John W. 1961 The Role of Agriculture in Economic Development. American Economic Review 51:566-593.

Jones, William O. 1960 Economic Man in Africa. Food Research Institute Studies 1:107-134.

Krishna, Raj 1963 Farm Supply Response in India-Pakistan: A Case Study of the Punjab Region. Economic Journal 73:477-487.

Mellor, John W. 1962 The Process of Agricultural Development in Low-income Countries. Journal of Farm Economics 44:700-716.

Mellor, John W. 1963 The Use and Productivity of Farm Family Labor in Early Stages of Agricultural Development. Journal of Farm Economics 45:517-534.

Mellor, John W. 1966 The Economics of Agricultural Development. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Univ. Press.

Nair, Kusum (1961) 1962 Blossoms in the Dust: The Human Factor in Indian Development. New York: Praeger.

Schultz, Theodore W. 1964 Transforming Traditional Agriculture. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.

Tax, Sol (1953) 1963 Penny Capitalism: A Guatemalan Indian Economy. Univ. of Chicago Press.

Warriner, Doreen (1939) 1965 The Economics of Peasant Farming. 2d ed. New York: Barnes & Noble.

Wiser, William H.; and Wiser, Charlotte (1930) 1963 Behind Mud Walls: 1930-1960. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.

International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences

Agriculture

views updated May 23 2018

Agriculture

2444 ■ AMERICAN BRAHMAN BREEDERS ASSOCIATION

Attn: Youth Activities Director
3003 South Loop West, Suite 140
Houston, TX 77054
Tel: (713)349-0854
Fax: (713)349-9795
E-mail: abba@brahman.org
Web Site: http://www.brahman.org
To provide financial assistance to members of the American Junior Brahman Association (AJBA) interested in attending college to prepare for an agriculture-oriented career.
Title of Award: Ladies of the ABBA Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: Varies each year; recently, 6 of these scholarships were awarded Funds Available: Scholarships range from $500 to $1,000.
Eligibility Requirements: Applicants must be active members of the AJBA, the youth division of the American Brahman Breeders Association (ABBA), who are graduating high school seniors and planning to prepare for an agriculture-oriented career. Applications must be accompanied by a record of 4-H, FFA, and FHA involvement; a record of AJBA involvement; a list of leadership roles and citizenship activities; a summary of other interests and activities (music, athletics, church, work, hobbies, etc.); and a brief essay on why the applicant selected agriculture as a field of study. Deadline for Receipt: April of each year.

2445 ■ AMERICAN NURSERY AND LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION

Attn: Horticultural Research Institute
1000 Vermont Avenue N.W., Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005-4914
Tel: (202)789-2900
Fax: (202)789-1893
E-mail: hriresearch@anla.org
Web Site: http://www.anla.org/research/scholarships/index.htm
To provide financial assistance to students working on an undergraduate or graduate degree in landscape architecture or horticulture.
Title of Award: Spring Meadow Nursery Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Horticulture; Landscape architecture and design Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Graduate, Undergraduate Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $2,000. Duration: 1 year; may be renewed.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to students enrolled full time in a landscape or horticulture undergraduate or graduate program at an accredited 2-year or 4-year college or university. Students enrolled in a vocational agriculture program are also eligible. Applicants must have a minimum GPA of 2.25 overall and 2.7 in their major. Preference is given to applicants who plan to work within the nursery industry, including nursery operations; landscape architecture, design, construction, or maintenance; interiorscape; horticultural distribution; or retail garden center. Deadline for Receipt: March of each year. Additional Information: This program was established in 1999.

2446 ■ AMERICAN NURSERY AND LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION

Attn: Horticultural Research Institute
1000 Vermont Avenue N.W., Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005-4914
Tel: (202)789-2900
Fax: (202)789-1893
E-mail: hriresearch@anla.org
Web Site: http://www.anla.org/research/scholarships/index.htm
To provide financial assistance to undergraduate and graduate students working on a degree in landscape architecture or horticulture at colleges and universities in California.
Title of Award: Usrey Family Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Horticulture; Landscape architecture and design Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Graduate, Undergraduate Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $2,000. Duration: 1 year; may be renewed.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to students enrolled full time in a landscape or horticulture undergraduate or graduate program at an accredited 2-year or 4-year college or university in California. Students enrolled in a vocational agriculture program are also eligible. Applicants must have a minimum GPA of 2.25 overall and 2.7 in their major. California state residency is not required. Preference is given to applicants who plan to work within the nursery industry, including nursery operations; landscape architecture, design, construction, or maintenance; interiorscape; horticultural distribution; or retail garden center. Deadline for Receipt: March of each year.

2447 ■ AMERICAN SOCIETY OF AGRICULTURAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERS

Attn: ASABE Foundation
2950 Niles Road
St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659
Tel: (269)429-0300
Fax: (269)429-3852
E-mail: hq@asabe.org
Web Site: http://www.asabe.org/membership/students/grant1.html
To provide financial assistance to undergraduate student members of the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE).
Title of Award: William J. and Marijane E. Adams, Jr. Agricultural Engineering Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Biological and clinical sciences; Engineering, Agricultural Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000. Funds must be used for tuition, fees, books, and on-campus room and board. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to undergraduate students who have a declared major in biological or agricultural engineering (must be accredited by ABET or CEAB), are student members of the society, are in at least the second year of college, have at least 1 year of undergraduate study remaining, have a GPA of 2.5 or higher, can demonstrate financial need, and have a special interest in agricultural machinery product design and development. Interested applicants should submit a personal letter (up to 2 pages long) stating how the money will be used, outlining their financial need, and describing their interest in the design and development of new agricultural machinery products. Deadline for Receipt: March of each year.

2448 ■ AMERICAN SOCIETY OF AGRICULTURAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERS

Attn: ASABE Foundation 2950 Niles Road
St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659
Tel: (269)429-0300
Fax: (269)429-3852
E-mail: hq@asabe.org
Web Site: http://www.asabe.org/membership/students/foundation.html
To provide financial assistance to undergraduate student members of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE).
Title of Award: ASABE Foundation Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Biological and clinical sciences; Engineering, Agricultural Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000. Funds must be used for tuition, fees, books, and on-campus room and board. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to undergraduate students who have a declared major in biological or agricultural engineering (must be accredited by ABET or CEAB), are student members of the society, are in at least the second year of college, have at least 1 year of undergraduate student remaining, have a GPA of 2.5 or higher, can demonstrate financial need, and can verify that graduation from their degree program assures eligibility for the Professional Engineer (PE) licensing examination. Interested applicants should submit a personal letter (up to 2 pages long) stating how the money will be used and presenting proof that their degree program assures eligibility for the PE licensing examination. Deadline for Receipt: March of each year. Additional Information: This scholarship was first awarded in 2002.

2449 ■ AMERICAN SOCIETY OF AGRICULTURAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERS

Attn: ASABE Foundation
2950 Niles Road
St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659
Tel: (269)429-0300
Fax: (269)429-3852
E-mail: hq@asabe.org
Web Site: http://www.asabe.org/membership/students/engscholar.html
To recognize and reward student members of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE) who participate in a competition to select the best student of the year.
Title of Award: ASABE Student Engineer of the Year Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Biological and clinical sciences; Engineering, Agricultural Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The award is a $1,000 scholarship. Duration: The competition is held annually.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to biological and agricultural engineering students at colleges and universities in Canada and the United States. Applicants must have completed at least 1 year of undergraduate study with a GPA of 3.0 or higher, have at least 1 year remaining, and be members of the society. Selection is based on: scholarship, with special consideration given to students who demonstrate improvement in academic work from freshman to sophomore to junior years (20 points); character and personal development, including participation in non-university activities and service to others (10 points); student membership in the society and active participation in a student branch organization (25 points); participation in other school activities (15 points); leadership qualities, creativity, initiative, and responsibility (25 points); and level of financial self-support provided by the student (5 points). In addition, the judges consider the candidate's paper, up to 500 words, on "My Goals in the Engineering Profession." Deadline for Receipt: March of each year. Additional Information: This scholarship was first awarded in 1997

2450 ■ AMERICAN SOCIETY OF AGRICULTURAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERS

Attn: ASABE Foundation
2950 Niles Road
St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659
Tel: (269)429-0300
Fax: (269)429-3852
E-mail: hq@asabe.org
Web Site: http://www.asabe.org/membership/merriam.html
To provide financial assistance to undergraduate student members of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE) interested in soil and water issues.
Title of Award: John L. and Sarah G. Merriam Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Biological and clinical sciences; Engineering, Agricultural; Soil science; Water resources Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to undergraduate students who have a declared major in biological or agricultural engineering (must be accredited by ABET or CEAB), are student members of the society, are in at least the second year of college, have a GPA of 2.5 or higher, have at least 1 year of undergraduate study remaining, and have a special interest in soil and water issues. Interested applicants should submit a personal letter (up to 2 pages long) explaining why they have selected the soil and water discipline as the focus of their degree. Financial need is not considered in the selection process. Deadline for Receipt: March of each year. Additional Information: This scholarship was first awarded in 2001.

2451 ■ ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES

Attn: Scholarship Program
910 K Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95814-3514
Tel: (916)441-4545
Fax: (916)325-4849
E-mail: lavonnew@acwa.com
Web Site: http://www.acwa.com/news_info/scholarships
To provide financial assistance to upper-division students in California who are majoring in water resources-related fields of study.
Title of Award: Association of California Water Agencies Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Engineering; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Public administration; Water resources Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: At least 6 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,500. Funds are paid directly to the recipient's school. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to California residents attending selected colleges and universities in the state. Applicants must be full-time students in their junior or senior year at the time of the award and majoring in a field related to or identified with water resources, including engineering, agricultural and/or urban water supply, environmental sciences, or public administration. Along with their application, they must submit 2-page essay on key water-related issues they would address if given the opportunity, why they have chosen a career in the water resources field, and how their educational and career goals relate to a future in California water resources. Selection is based on scholastic achievement, commitment to a career in the field of water resources, and financial need. Deadline for Receipt: March of each year. Additional Information: Recipients must attend a college or university in California approved by the sponsor.

2452 ■ ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES

Attn: Scholarship Program
910 K Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95814-3514
Tel: (916)441-4545
Fax: (916)325-4849
E-mail: lavonnew@acwa.com
Web Site: http://www.acwa.com/news_info/scholarships
To provide financial assistance to upper-division students in California who are majoring in water resources-related fields of study.
Title of Award: Clair A. Hill Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject:
Agricultural sciences; Engineering; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Public administration; Water resources Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $3,000. Funds are paid directly to the recipient's school. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: Applicants must be California residents attending public colleges or universities in the state. They should 1) have completed their sophomore work, 2) be full-time students in their junior or senior year at the time of the award, and 3) be majoring in a field related to or identified with water resources, including engineering, agricultural sciences, urban water supply, environmental sciences, and public administration. Selection is based on scholastic achievement, career plans, and financial need. Deadline for Receipt: March of each year. Additional Information: This program is administered each year by the current recipient of the Association of California Water Agencies Clair A. Hill Agency Award for Excellence, which is presented annually to a public water agency in recognition of outstanding and innovative water management programs. The winning agency generally selects a student within its service area. Funding is provided by the consulting firm CH2M Hill. Recipients must attend a branch of the University of California or the California State University system on a full-time basis.

2453 ■ AYRSHIRE BREEDERS' ASSOCIATION

1224 Alton Darby Creek Road, Suite B
Columbus, OH 43228
Tel: (614)335-0020
Fax: (614)335-0023
E-mail: info@usayrshire.com
Web Site: http://www.usayrshire.com
To provide financial assistance to members of the Ayrshire Breeders' Association who are interested in studying agriculture in college.
Title of Award: National Ayrshire Youth Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 2 each year: 1 at $2,500 and 1 at $1,000. Funds Available: Stipends are $2,500 or $1,000. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to high school seniors and students currently enrolled in a 2-year or 4-year college or university. Applicants must have been a junior member in good standing with the association for at least the past 5 years. They must be majoring or planning to major in a field related to agriculture. Along with their application, they must submit a description of their involvement in Ayrshire activities on the local, state, and/or national level; a description of their involvement in 4-H and/or FFA activities on the local, state, and/or national level; a description of their involvement in school, church, and community activities; a summary of their career goals and aspirations related to their major area of study; a copy of their high school transcript; a copy of their acceptance into a postsecondary program; and 3 letters of recommendation. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year.

2454 ■ CALIFORNIA STATE FAIR

Attn: Friends of the Fair Scholarship Program
1600 Exposition Boulevard
P.O. Box 15649
Sacramento, CA 95852
Tel: (916)274-5969
E-mail: wross@calexpo.com
Web Site: http://www.bigfun.org
To provide financial assistance to high school students in California who plan to attend a 4-year college or university in the state to study agriculture.
Title of Award: California State Fair Agricultural College Scholarships for High School Students Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 2 each year: 1 at $1,500 and 1 at $500. Funds Available: Stipends are $1,500 or $500. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to juniors and seniors currently enrolled at high schools in California. Applicants must be planning to attend a 4-year college or university in the state to major in agriculture. They must have a GPA of 3.0 or higher. Along with their application, they must submit a 2-page essay on why they are pursuing their desired career and life goals. Selection is based on personal commitment, goals established for their chosen field, leadership potential, and civic accomplishments. Deadline for Receipt: March of each year. Additional Information: The Friends of the Fair Scholarship Program was established in 1993.

2455 ■ CALIFORNIA STATE FAIR

Attn: Friends of the Fair Scholarship Program
1600 Exposition Boulevard
P.O. Box 15649
Sacramento, CA 95852
Tel: (916)274-5969
E-mail: wross@calexpo.com
Web Site: http://www.bigfun.org
To provide financial assistance to high school students in California who plan to attend a community college in the state to study agriculture.
Title of Award: California State Fair Agricultural Community College Scholarships for High School Students Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Two Year College Number Awarded: 2 each year: 1 at $1,000 and 1 at $500. Funds Available: Stipends are $1,000 or $500. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to juniors and seniors currently enrolled at high schools in California. Applicants must be planning to attend a community college in the state to major in agriculture. They must have a GPA of 3.0 or higher. Along with their application, they must submit a 2-page essay on why they are pursuing their desired career and life goals. Selection is based on personal commitment, goals established for their chosen Deadline for Receipt: March of each year. Additional Information: The Friends of the Fair Scholarship Program was established in 1993.

2456 ■ CALIFORNIA STATE FAIR

Attn: Friends of the Fair Scholarship Program
1600 Exposition Boulevard
P.O. Box 15649
Sacramento, CA 95852
Tel: (916)274-5969
E-mail: wross@calexpo.com
Web Site: http://www.bigfun.org
To provide financial assistance to community college students in California who are studying agriculture.
Title of Award: California State Fair Community College Scholarships in Agriculture Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Two Year College Number Awarded: 2 each year: 1 at $1,000 and 1 at $500. Funds Available: Stipends are $1,000 or $500. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to students currently enrolled at community colleges in California. Applicants must have completed at least 12 units of undergraduate course work in agricultural classes. They must have a GPA of 3.0 or higher. Along with their application, they must submit a 2-page essay on why they are pursuing their desired career and life goals. Selection is based on personal commitment, goals established for their chosen field, leadership potential, and civic accomplishments. Deadline for Receipt: March of each year. Additional Information: The Friends of the Fair Scholarship Program was established in 1993.

2457 ■ CALIFORNIA STATE FAIR

Attn: Friends of the Fair Scholarship Program
1600 Exposition Boulevard
P.O. Box 15649
Sacramento, CA 95852
Tel: (916)274-5969
E-mail: wross@calexpo.com
Web Site: http://www.bigfun.org
To provide financial assistance to undergraduate and graduate students in California who are studying agriculture.
Title of Award: California State Fair Undergraduate and Graduate Scholarships in Agriculture Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College, Graduate Number Awarded: 2 each year: 1 at $1,500 and 1 at $500. Funds Available: Stipends are $1,500 or $500. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to undergraduate and graduate students currently enrolled at 4-year colleges and university in California. Applicants must have completed at least 12 units of course work in agricultural classes. They must have a GPA of 3.0 or higher. Along with their application, they must submit a 2-page essay on why they are pursuing their desired career and life goals. Selection is based on personal commitment, goals established for their chosen field, leadership potential, and civic accomplishments. Deadline for Receipt: March of each year. Additional Information: The Friends of the Fair Scholarship Program was established in 1993.

2458 ■ CALIFORNIA STATE FAIR

Attn: Friends of the Fair Scholarship Program
1600 Exposition Boulevard
P.O. Box 15649
Sacramento, CA 95852
Tel: (916)274-5969
E-mail: wross@calexpo.com
Web Site: http://www.bigfun.org
To provide financial assistance for college to residents of California who are interested in majoring in designated fields or preparing for a career in the Fair industry.
Title of Award: Eddie G. Cole Memorial Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Education, Physical; Equine studies Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 2 each year: 1 at $1,000 and 1 at $500. Funds Available: Stipends are $1,000 or $500. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to residents of California currently working on an undergraduate degree at a college or university in the state. Applicants be 1) majoring in physical education, agriculture, or equine studies; or 2) preparing for a career in the Fair industry. They must have a GPA of 3.0 or higher. Along with their application, they must submit a 2-page essay on why they are pursuing their desired career and life goals. Selection is based on personal commitment, goals established for their chosen field, leadership potential, and civic accomplishments. Deadline for Receipt: March of each year. Additional Information: The Friends of the Fair Scholarship Program was established in 1993.

2459 ■ COLORADO WEED MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION

Attn: Scholarship Program
P.O. Box 1910
Granby, CO 80446-1910
Tel: (970)887-1228
Fax: (970)887-1229
E-mail: cwma@rkymtnhi.com
Web Site: http://www.cwma.org/scholarship.htm
To provide financial assistance to high school seniors and college students in Colorado who are interested in weed management.
Title of Award: Colorado Weed Management Association Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Botany; Natural resources Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: A stipend is awarded (amount not specified). Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to high school seniors and college students who have demonstrated an interest in weed management and are planning to major in agriculture, natural resource management, botany, range management, or a related field. Applicants must be attending or planning to attend a 2-year college or 4-year college or university in Colorado. Along with their application, they must submit an essay, up to 3 pages in length, on the topic, "The Threat of Noxious Weeds Is…" High school seniors must have a GPA of 2.5 or higher; college freshmen must have a cumulative GPA of 2.0 or higher; college sophomores, juniors, and seniors must have a GPA of 2.5 or higher. Financial need is also considered in the selection process. Deadline for Receipt: March of each year.

2460 ■ COMMUNITY FOUNDATION FOR THE FOX VALLEY REGION, INC.

Attn: Scholarships
4455 West Lawrence Street
P.O. Box 563
Appleton, WI 54912-0563
Tel: (920)830-1290
Fax: (920)830-1293
E-mail: cffvr@cffoxvalley.org
Web Site: http://www.cffoxvalley.org/scholarship_fundslist.html
To provide financial assistance to upper-division and graduate students in Wisconsin who are working on a degree related to gardening.
Title of Award: Wisconsin Garden Club Federation Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Botany; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Forestry; Horticulture; Landscape architecture and design; Urban affairs/design/planning Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Graduate, Four Year College Number Awarded: Varies each year; recently, 4 of these scholarships were awarded. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to college juniors, seniors, and graduate students at colleges and universities in Wisconsin. Applicants must be majoring in horticulture, floriculture, landscape design/architecture, botany, forestry, agronomy, plant pathology, environmental studies, city planning, land management, or a related field. They must have a 3.0 GPA or higher. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: This program is sponsored by the Wisconsin Garden Club Federation. Information is also available from Carolyn A. Craig, WGCF Scholarship Chair, 900 North Shore Drive, New Richmond, WI 54017-9466, (715) 246-6242, E-mail: cacraig@frontiernet.net.

2461 ■ COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF LOUISVILLE

Attn: Director of Grants
Waterfront Plaza, Suite 1110
325 West Main Street
Louisville, KY 40202-4251
Tel: (502)585-4649
Fax: (502)587-7484
E-mail: info@cflouisville.org
Web Site: http://www.cflouisville.org
To provide financial assistance to women studying fields related to the environment at colleges and universities in Kentucky.
Title of Award: Thaddeus Colson and Isabelle Saalwaechter Fitzpatrick Memorial Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Biological and clinical sciences; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Horticulture Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 1eachyear. Funds Available: The stipend is $2,000. Funds are paid directly to the college or university. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to female residents of Kentucky who are entering their sophomore, junior, or senior year at a 4-year public college or university in the state. Applicants must be majoring in an environmentally related program (e.g., agriculture, biology, horticulture, environmental studies, environmental engineering). They must be enrolled full time with a GPA of 3.0 or higher. Along with their application, they must submit a 200-word essay describing their interest, leadership, volunteer efforts, and work experience in the environmental field; their future plans and goals in the environmental field; and what they hope to accomplish with their college degree. Financial need is also considered in the selection process. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year.

2462 ■ COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF NEW JERSEY

Attn: Scholarship Services
Knox Hill Road
P.O. Box 338
Morristown, NJ 07963-0338
Tel: (973)267-5533
Free: 800-659-5533
Fax: (973)267-2903
E-mail: fkrueger@cfnj.org
Web Site: http://www.cfnj.org
To provide financial assistance to residents of New Jersey who are working on an undergraduate or graduate degree in agriculture.
Title of Award: Stephen A. Johnston Memorial Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Graduate, Undergraduate Number Awarded: 2 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000 per year. Funds are made payable jointly to the recipients and their educational institution. Duration: 1 year; recipients may reapply if they maintain a GPA of at least 3.0.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to New Jersey residents enrolled as a sophomore, junior, senior, or graduate student at a college or university in the United States. Applicants must be interested in preparing for a career in agriculture with an emphasis on production agriculture. Preference is given to students majoring in plant pathology and to students who have worked or will work with the Rutgers Agricultural Research and Extension Center. Deadline for Receipt: April of each year.

2463 ■ COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF NEW JERSEY

Attn: Donor Services
Knox Hill Road
P.O. Box 338
Morristown, NJ 07963-0338
Tel: (973)267-5533
Fax: (973)267-2903
E-mail: Cangeleri@cfnj.org
Web Site: http://www.cfnj.org
To provide financial assistance to college and graduate students from New Jersey who are preparing for a career in vegetable crop production or a related field.
Title of Award: Stephen A. Johnston Memorial Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Graduate, Undergraduate Number Awarded: 2 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000 per year. Funds are paid jointly to the recipient and the educational institution. Duration: 1 year; recipients may reapply if they maintain a "B" average.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to residents of New Jersey who are college sophomores, juniors, seniors, and graduate students at accredited colleges and universities in the United States. Applicants must have an interest in vegetable crop production or a related field. Preference is given to students majoring in plant pathology and to students who have worked or will work with the Rutgers Agricultural Research and Extension Center (RAREC). Along with their application, they must submit a 1-page statement of their career goals and the reasons for those goals. Selection is based on academic performance, extracurricular activities, work experience, and financial need. Deadline for Receipt: September of each year.

2464 ■ BILLY CONSALO MEMORIAL AGRICULTURAL SCHOLARSHIP FUND

c/o Dottie Kargman, Trustee
1485 Catawba Avenue
Newfield, NJ 08344
Tel: (856)697-0581
Fax: (856)697-1594
To provide financial assistance to high school seniors in New Jersey who are interested in studying agriculture in college.
Title of Award: Billy Consalo Memorial Agricultural Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $2,500. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to seniors graduating from high schools in New Jersey who have a "C" average or higher. Applicants must be planning to attend a college, university, technical school, or other institute of higher education to study agriculture or a related field. They must submit a letter explaining why they are interested in agriculture, a transcript, 3 letters of recommendation, and information on their financial need. Deadline for Receipt: April of each year.

2465 ■ DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Marketing and Regulatory Programs
4700 River Road, Unit 22
Riverdale, MD 20737-1230
800-762-2738
Web Site: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq
To provide financial assistance and work experience to college students majoring in the agricultural or biological sciences.
Title of Award: PPQ William F. Helms Student Scholarship Program Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Biological and clinical sciences; Botany; Entomology; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Virology Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: Several each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $5,000 per year. Duration: 1 year; may be renewed if the recipient maintains a GPA of 2.5 or higher.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to college sophomores and juniors who are attending an accredited college or university, are majoring in an agricultural or biological science (such as biology, plant pathology, entomology, virology, bacteriology, mycology, or ecology), are interested in a career in plant protection and quarantine, and are U.S. citizens. To apply, interested students must submit a completed application form, a personal letter describing their career goals and interest in plant protection and quarantine, transcripts, and 3 letters of recommendation. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is the agency responsible for protecting America's agriculture base; Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) is the program within APHIS that deals with plant health issues. In addition to financial assistance, the Helms Student Scholarship Program also offers tutoring assistance, mentoring, paid work experience during vacation periods, career exploration, and possible employment upon graduation.

2466 ■ ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Attn: National Center for Environmental Research
Ariel Rios Building - 3500
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: (202)343-9862
E-mail: barnwell.thomas@epa.gov
Web Site: http://es.epa.gov/ncer/P3
To provide funding to teams of undergraduate and graduate students interested in conducting a research project related to environmental sustainability.
Title of Award: P3 Award Program Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Biological and clinical sciences; Chemistry; Energy-related areas; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Information science and technology; Public health; Transportation; Water resources Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Graduate, Undergraduate Number Awarded: Varies each year. Recently, 42 Phase I grants were awarded, of which 10 were selected to receive Phase II grants. Funds Available: Phase I grants are $10,000. Phase II grants are $75,000. Grants cover all direct and indirect costs; cost-sharing is not required. Duration: 1 year for Phase I and 1 additional year for Phase II.
Eligibility Requirements: This competition is open to teams of undergraduate and graduate students at U.S. colleges and universities who are interested in conducting a research project related to the 3 components of sustainability: people, prosperity, and the planet. Projects must address the causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction, or elimination of air, water, or solid and hazardous waste pollution. Categories include agriculture (e.g., irrigation practices, reduction or elimination of pesticides); materials and chemicals (e.g., materials conservation, green engineering, green chemistry, biotechnology, recovery and reuse of materials); energy (e.g., reduction in air emissions, energy conservation); information technology (e.g., delivery of and access to environmental performance, technical, educational, or public health information related environmental decision making); water (e.g., quality, quantity, conservation, availability, and access); or the built environment (e.g., environmental benefits through innovative green buildings, transportation, and mobility strategies, and smart growth as it results in reduced vehicle miles traveled or reduces storm water runoff). Student teams, with a faculty advisor (who serves as the principal investigator on the grant), submit designs for Phase I of the competition. Selection of grantees is based on the extent to which the proposed project achieves the outcomes of minimizing the use and generation of hazardous substances; utilizes resources and energy effectively and efficiently; and advances the goals of economic competitiveness, human health, and environmental protection for societal benefit. Recipients of Phase I grants are then invited to apply for additional funding through a Phase I grant. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: This program began in 2004. It is supported by a large number of organizations from industry, the nonprofit sector, and the federal government.

2467 ■ FEDERATED GARDEN CLUBS OF CONNECTICUT, INC.

14 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 854
Branford, CT 06405-0854
Tel: (203)488-5528
Fax: (203)488-5528
E-mail: gardenclubs@ctgardenclubs.org
Web Site: http://www.ctgardenclubs.org/scholarship.html
To provide financial assistance to Connecticut residents who are interested in majoring in horticulture-related fields at a Connecticut college or university.
Title of Award: Federated Garden Clubs of Connecticut Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Botany; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Forestry; Horticulture; Landscape architecture and design; Urban affairs/design/planning Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College, Graduate Number Awarded: Varies each year, depending upon the availability of funds. Funds Available: Stipends are generally about $1,000 each. Funds are sent to the recipient's school in 2 equal installments. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: Applicants must be legal residents of Connecticut who are studying at a college or university in the state in horticulture, floriculture, landscape design, conservation, forestry, botany, agronomy, plant pathology, environmental control, city planning, land management, or related subjects. They must be entering their junior or senior year of college or be a graduate student, have a GPA of 3.0 or higher, and be able to demonstrate financial need. Deadline for Receipt: June of each year. Additional Information: Information is also available from the Connecticut State Scholarship Chair, Mary Gray, 18 Long Hill Farm Road, Guilford, CT 06437, (203) 458-2784.

2468 ■ FIRST PIONEER FARM CREDIT, ACA

Attn: Scholarships
174 South Road
Enfield, CT 06082
Tel: (860)741-4380
Fax: (860)253-5565
E-mail: info@firstpioneer.com
Web Site: http://www.firstpioneer.com
To provide financial assistance for college to residents of designated northeastern states, especially stockholders of First Pioneer Farm Credit.
Title of Award: First Pioneer Farm Credit Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; General studies/Field of study not specified Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 15 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000. Funds are paid directly to the student to be used for tuition, room and board, books, and other academic charges. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to residents of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, and portions of New York and New Hampshire. Applicants must be either 1) an individual eligible to own voting stock in First Pioneer Farm Credit or the child of such an individual; or 2) a college student working on a degree in an applied agricultural field regardless of their parents' membership status. Eligibility to own voting stock is limited to U.S. citizens and permanent residents who own agricultural land or are engaged in harvesting, production, processing, or marketing of agricultural products. Students in that category may be majoring in any field, but preference is given to the study of agriculture or closely-related areas. Applicants in both categories may be high school seniors, attending college, or in the work force and working on or planning to work on an associate, bachelor's, or graduate degree. They must submit a 200-word essay on why they wish to prepare for a career in agriculture or in their chosen field. Selection is based on the essay, extracurricular activities (including job responsibilities on the home farm), and interest in agriculture Deadline for Receipt: April Additional Information: Recipients are given priority for an internship with the sponsor in the summer following their junior year.

2469 ■ HAWAI'I COMMUNITY FOUNDATION

Attn: Scholarship Department
1164 Bishop Street, Suite 800
Honolulu, HI 96813
Tel: (808)566-5570; 888-731-3863
Fax: (808)521-6286
E-mail: scholarships@hcf-hawaii.org
Web Site: http://www.hawaiicommunityfoundation.org/scholar/scholar.php
To provide financial assistance to residents of designated sections of Hawaii who are interested in going to college to prepare for a career in agriculture, medicine, science, or nursing.
Title of Award: Dan and Pauline Lutkenhouse Tropical Botanical Garden Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Medicine; Nursing; Science Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Graduate, Undergraduate Number Awarded: Varies each year; recently, 2 of these scholarships were awarded. Funds Available: The amount of the award depends on the availability of funds and the need of the recipient; recently, stipends averaged $1,000. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to residents of the Hilo Coast and the Hamakua Coast, north of the Wailuku River, who are interested in attending college as full-time undergraduate or graduate students. Applicants must be majoring or planning to major in agriculture, medicine, nursing, or science. They must be able to demonstrate academic achievement (GPA of 2.7 or higher), good moral character, and financial need. In addition to filling out the standard application form, applicants must write a short statement indicating their reasons for attending college, their planned course of study, and their career goals. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Recipients may attend college in Hawaii or on the mainland.

2470 ■ HISPANIC SCHOLARSHIP FUND INSTITUTE

1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 632
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: (202)296-0009
Fax: (202)296-3633
E-mail: info@hsfi.org
Web Site: http://www.hsfi.org/scholarships/energy.asp
To provide financial assistance to Hispanic undergraduate students majoring in designated business, engineering, and science fields related to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) goals of environmental restoration and waste management.
Title of Award: Environmental Management Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Business administration; Chemistry; Computer and information sciences; Engineering, Agricultural; Engineering, Civil; Engineering, Electrical; Engineering, Industrial; Engineering, Mechanical; Engineering, Metallurgical; Engineering, Petroleum; Environmental science; Epidemiology; Geology; Hydrology; Management; Mathematics and mathematical sciences; Physics; Radiology; Toxicology Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: Varies each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $3,000 per year for 4-year university students or $2,000 per year for community college students. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to U.S. citizens and permanent residents of Hispanic background who have completed at least 12 undergraduate credits with a GPA of 3.0 or higher. Applicants must be interested in preparing for a career supportive of the DOE goals of environmental restoration and waste management. Eligible academic majors are in the fields of business (management and system analysis), engineering (agricultural, chemical, civil, electrical, environmental, industrial, mechanical, metallurgical, nuclear, and petroleum), and science (applied math/physics, chemistry, computer science, ecology, environmental, epidemiology, geology, health physics, hydrology, radiochemistry, radio-ecology, and toxicology). Along with their application, they must submit a 2-page essay on 1) how their academic major, interests, and career goals correspond to environmental restoration and waste management issues; and 2) how their Hispanic background and family upbringing have influenced their academic and personal goals. Selection is based on the essay, academic record, academic plans and career goals, financial need, commitment to DOE's goal of environmental restoration and waste management, and a letter of recommendation. Deadline for Receipt: March of each year. Additional Information: This program, which began in 1990, is sponsored by DOE's Office of Environmental Management. Recipients must enroll full time at a college or university in the United States.

2471 ■ IOWA FOUNDATION FOR AGRICULTURAL ADVANCEMENT

Attn: Department IFFAA/Iowa State Fair
P.O. Box 57130
Des Moines, IA 50317-0003
800-545-FAIR
E-mail: saleofchampions@yahoo.com
Web Site: http://www.iowastatefair.org/saleofchamps
To provide financial assistance for college to Iowa high school seniors interested in majoring in animal science or livestock-related fields.
Title of Award: IFFAA Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Animal science and behavior Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: Varies each year. Recently, 74 scholarships (with a value of $77,00) and 64 performance and carcass awards (with a value of $11,500) were presented. Funds Available: Stipends range from $500 to $2,500. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to students who will be entering an Iowa 2- or 4-year postsecondary institution in the following fall. Applicants must be residents of Iowa, active in 4-H or FFA livestock projects, and planning to major in animal science or a field in agriculture or home economics that is related to the animal industry. Selection is based on level of 4-H or FFA involvement in livestock project work, livestock exhibition, and/or judging (50%); scholarship (15%); leadership and activities (25%); and curriculum and career plans (10%). The program also includes performance and carcass awards in which animals are selected on the basis of visual appraisal and then evaluated in a carcass contest for economically important traits, such as loin eye or rib eye area, tenth rib fat, and average daily gain. Deadline for Receipt: May of each year. Additional Information: Information is also available from county 4-H offices in Iowa and local FFA advisors. Winners are announced at the Iowa State Fair's annual 4-H/FFA "Sale of Champions" in August, sponsored by the Iowa Foundation for Agricultural Advancement (IFFAA). The IFFAA was established in 1988 and began offering scholarships in 1990.

2472 ■ MAINE COMMUNITY FOUNDATION

Attn: Program Director
245 Main Street
Ellsworth, ME 04605
Tel: (207)667-9735; 877-700-6800
Fax: (207)667-0447
E-mail: info@mainecf.org
Web Site: http://www.mainecf.org/html/scholarships/index.html
To provide financial assistance to FFA members from Maine who are interested in preparing for a career in agriculture.
Title of Award: Ronald P. Guerrette FFA Scholarship Fund Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 3 each year. Funds Available: A stipend is paid (amount not specified). Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to residents of Maine who are enrolled or planning to enroll in a course of study to prepare for a career in farming and agriculture. Current FFA membership is required. Priority is given first to students from Caribou High School, then to residents of Aroostook County, and then to residents of the state of Maine. Financial need is considered in the selection process. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: This program began in 1998.

2473 ■ MINNESOTA TRAPPERS ASSOCIATION

c/o Deb Offerdahl
230 Second Street S.E.
Milaca, MN 56353
Tel: (320)982-1385
Web Site: http://www.mntrappers.com
To provide financial assistance for college to members of the Minnesota Trappers Association (MTA) and to other students working on a degree in a field related to natural resources.
Title of Award: Minnesota Trappers Association Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Engineering, Agricultural; Forestry; General studies/Field of study not specified; Natural resources; Veterinary science and medicine; Wildlife conservation, management, and science; Zoology Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 7 each year: 1 at $2,000, 2 at $1,000, 1 at $600 (the Russ Cumberland Scholarship), and 3 at $500. Funds Available: Stipends range from $500 to $2,000. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to 1) MTA members working on an undergraduate degree in any field; and 2) other undergraduates working on a degree in agricultural engineering, agricultural science, forestry, natural resources, veterinary medicine, wildlife biology, or zoology. Applicants must be entering or enrolled in a 2- or 4-year program at an accredited college or university and have a college GPA of 2.5 or higher (entering freshmen must submit a transcript of their first term of college work before funds are released). Deadline for Receipt: June of each year. Additional Information: This program includes the Russ Cumberland Scholarship. Information is also available from Todd Roggenkamp, 28952 438th Lane, Palasade, MN 56373, (218) 768-2597.

2474 ■ NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL AVIATION ASSOCIATION

Attn: Women of the NAAA
1005 E Street, S.E.
Washington, DC 20003-2947
Tel: (202)546-5722
Fax: (202)546-5726
E-mail: information@agaviation.org
Web Site: http://www.agaviation.org/scholarship.htm
To recognize and reward outstanding student essays on agricultural aviation.
Title of Award: Women's National Agricultural Aviation Association Scholarship Essay Contest Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Aviation; General studies/Field of study not specified; Writing Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 2 each year. Funds Available: First prize is $2,000; second prize is $1,000. Duration: The competition is held annually.
Eligibility Requirements: This competition is open to the children, grandchildren, sons-in-law, daughters-in-law, or spouses of any National Agricultural Aviation Association operator, pilot member, retired operator, or pilot who maintains an active membership in the association. The contest is also open to the children, grandchildren, sons-in-law, daughters-in-law, or spouses of an allied industry member. Entrants must be high school seniors, high school graduates, or college students. They may be of any age pursuing any area of education beyond high school. They are invited to submit an essay, up to 1,500 words, on a theme related to agricultural aviation that changes annually; recently, the topic was "Agricultural Aviation's Contribution to the World's Food Supply." A photograph of the entrant and a short biography should accompany the submission. Essays are judged on theme, development, clarity, and originality. Deadline for Receipt: August of each year.

2475 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321
E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance to FFA members currently studying agriculture in college.
Title of Award: Accelerated Genetics Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 2 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000 per year. Funds are paid directly to the recipient. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to members currently enrolled full time in college and working on a 2-year or 4-year degree in agriculture. Applicants, or their parents, must be purchasing semen or farm products from an authorized Accelerated Genetics representative. They must live on a family-owned farm. Selection is based on academic achievement (10 points for GPA, 10 points for SAT or ACT score, 10 points for class rank), leadership in FFA activities (30 points), leadership in community activities (10 points), and participation in the Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) program (30 points). U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Funding for these scholarships is provided by Accelerated Genetics.

2476 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321
E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance to FFA members studying agriculture in college.
Title of Award: AGCO Corporation Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 4 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $2,400. Funds are paid directly to the recipient. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to members who are working full time on a 4-year college degree in agriculture. Selection is based on academic achievement (10 points for GPA, 10 points for SAT or ACT score, 10 points for class rank), leadership in FFA activities (30 points), leadership in community activities (10 points), and participation in the Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) program (30 points). U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Funding for these scholarships is provided by AGCO Corporation.

2477 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321
E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance to FFA members interested in studying agriculture in college.
Title of Award: AGDATA Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 4 each year: 2 to high school seniors and 2 to current college students. Funds Available: The stipend is $2,500 per year. Funds are paid directly to the recipient. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to members who are either high school seniors or already enrolled full time in college. Applicants must be working on or planning to work on a 2-year or 4-year degree in an area of agriculture. Selection is based on academic achievement (10 points for GPA, 10 points for SAT or ACT score, 10 points for class rank), leadership in FFA activities (30 points), leadership in community activities (10 points), and participation in the Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) program (30 points). Financial need is also considered. U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Funding for this scholarship is provided by AGDATA Inc.

2478 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321
E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance to FFA members interested in studying an agricultural field in college.
Title of Award: Agrium U.S. Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Agribusiness; Agricultural sciences; Engineering, Agricultural; Soil science Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 5 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000. Funds are paid directly to the recipient. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to members who are graduating high school seniors planning to enroll full time in a 4-year college. Applicants must be planning to prepare for a career in agricultural sales, marketing, engineering, agronomy, crop science, or soil science. They must have a GPA of 3.0 or higher and be residents of the U.S. mainland. Selection is based on academic achievement (10 points for GPA, 10 points for SAT or ACT score, 10 points for class rank), leadership in FFA activities (30 points), leadership in community activities (10 points), and participation in the Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) program (30 points). U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Funding for this scholarship is provided by Agrium U.S. Inc. of Denver.

2479 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2480 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2481 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960 Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321
E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance for college to FFA members from designated states.
Title of Award: Arysta LifeScience North America Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $5,350 per year. Funds are paid directly to the recipient. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to members from California, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, or Washington. Applicants must be high school seniors or college students working or planning to work full time on a degree in agriculture. They must have a GPA of 3.0 or higher. Selection is based on academic achievement (10 points for GPA, 10 points for SAT or ACT score, 10 points for class rank), leadership in FFA activities (30 points), leadership in community activities (10 points), and participation in the Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) program (30 points). U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: This program is sponsored by Arysta LifeScience North America.

2482 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321
E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance to FFA members from Oklahoma and from designated counties in Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Texas who are interested in studying agriculture in college.
Title of Award: Atwoods Stores Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000 per year. Funds are paid directly to the recipient. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to members who are graduating high school seniors planning to enroll full time in college. Applicants must be planning to work on a 4-year college degree in agriculture at an accredited institution in Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, or Texas. Arkansas residents are eligible if they are from 1 of the following 4 counties: Crawford, Logan, Scott, or Sebastian. Kansas residents are eligible if they are from 1 of the following 4 counties: Butler, Cowley, Sedgwick, or Sumner. Missouri residents are eligible if they are from 1 of the following 5 counties: Barton, Dade, Jasper, Lawrence, or Newton. Oklahoma residents from all counties are eligible. Texas residents are eligible if they are from 1 of the following 6 counties: Archer, Baylor, Clay, Wichita, Wilbarger, or Young. Selection is based on academic achievement (10 points for GPA, 10 points for SAT or ACT score, 10 points for class rank), leadership in FFA activities (30 points), leadership in community activities (10 points), and participation in the Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) program (30 points). U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Funding for these scholarships is provided by Atwoods Stores.

2483 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2484 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2485 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321
E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance for the study of agriculture or agribusiness in college to FFA members from Alabama, Florida, and Georgia.
Title of Award: Birdsong Peanuts Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Agribusiness; Agricultural sciences Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College, Professional Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000 per year. Funds are paid directly to the recipient. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to members who are graduating high school seniors planning to enroll full time in college. Applicants must be residents of Georgia, Florida, or Alabama who are planning to work on a 4-year degree in agriculture or agribusiness. They must be either peanut producers or from a peanut-producing family. Selection is based on academic achievement (10 points for GPA, 10 points for SAT or ACT score, 10 points for class rank), leadership in FFA activities (30 points), leadership in community activities (10 points), and participation in the Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) program (30 points). U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Funding for this scholarship is provided by Birdsong Peanuts.

2486 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321
E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance for college to FFA members who have served as an officer of the organization.
Title of Award: James C. Borel FFA Leaders Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 1 or more each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000 per year. Funds are paid directly to the recipient. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to members who are either graduating high school seniors planning to enroll full time in college or students already enrolled in college on a full-time basis. Applicants must have served as a chapter, state, or national FFA officer. They must be working on or planning to work on a 4-year degree in agriculture and have a GPA of 3.5 or higher. Preference is given to students who have demonstrated exemplary leadership skills in their home, school, and community. Selection is based on academic achievement (10 points for GPA, 10 points for SAT or ACT score, 10 points for class rank), leadership in FFA activities (30 points), leadership in community activities (10 points), and participation in the Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) program (30 points). U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year.

2487 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2488 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2489 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2490 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321
E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance for the study of agriculture in college to FFA members.
Title of Award: Burley Tobacco Growers Cooperative Association Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000 per year. Funds are paid directly to the recipient. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to members who are graduating high school seniors planning to enroll or currently enrolled full time in college. Applicants must have a GPA of 2.5 or higher and be planning to work on a 4-year degree with an agricultural major. They must be from a tobacco-producing family and must include a statement of interest in the tobacco industry in their application. Selection is based on academic achievement (10 points for GPA, 10 points for SAT or ACT score, 10 points for class rank), leadership in FFA activities (30 points), leadership in community activities (10 points), and participation in the Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) program (30 points). U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Funding for this scholarship is provided by the Burley Tobacco Growers Cooperative Association of Lexington, Kentucky.

2491 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321
E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance to FFA members from selected states interested in studying field related to agribusiness in college.
Title of Award: Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Agribusiness; Agriculture, Economic aspects; Finance; Marketing and distribution Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 10 each year: 1 from each of the eligible states. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,250 per year. Funds are paid directly to the recipient. Duration: 1 year; may be renewed up to 3 additional years provided the recipient maintains a GPA of 3.0 or higher.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to members who are graduating high school seniors planning to enroll full time in college. Applicants must be residents of California, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, or Texas planning to work on a 4-year degree in the following areas of agriculture: business management, finance, economics, sales, and marketing. They must have a GPA of 3.0 or higher. Selection is based on academic achievement (10 points for GPA, 10 points for SAT or ACT score, 10 points for class rank), leadership in FFA activities (30 points), leadership in community activities (10 points), and participation in the Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) program (30 points). U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Funding for these scholarships is provided by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Foundation.

2492 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2493 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2494 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2495 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321
E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance to FFA members interested in studying agribusiness or management in college.
Title of Award: Chicago Mercantile Exchange Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Agribusiness; Agriculture, Economic aspects; Management Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000 per year. Funds are paid directly to the recipient. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to members who are graduating high school seniors planning to enroll full time in college. Applicants must be interested in working on a 4-year degree in agribusiness, including such majors as agricultural economics or agricultural business management. Special consideration is given to students whose family's livelihood is connected to the commodity brokerage business. Selection is based on academic achievement (10 points for GPA, 10 points for SAT or ACT score, 10 points for class rank), leadership in FFA activities (30 points), leadership in community activities (10 points), and participation in the Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) program (30 points). U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Funding for this scholarship is provided by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

2496 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2497 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2498 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321
E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance to high school students from farm families who plan to study agriculture in college.
Title of Award: Commitment to Agriculture Scholarship Program Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 100 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,500. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to high school seniors whose families are actively engaged in production agriculture. Applicants must be planning to study an agricultural field in college on a full-time basis and prepare for a career in agriculture. They must have an ACT composite score of 18 or higher or an SAT combined verbal and math score of 850 or higher. As part of the application process, they must submit an essay on the importance of innovation to U.S. agriculture. If they are a member of FFA, they must also include a statement from their advisor evaluating their involvement in FFA activities and indicating special circumstances, such as financial need, that should be considered. If they are not FFA members, they must provide documentation of other school, community, leadership, and work activities. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: This program, established in 1999, is funded by Monsanto Company (using pretrial settlement funds received in seed patent infringement cases) and the National Association of Farm Broadcasters.

2499 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321
E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance to FFA members interested in studying dairy science in college.
Title of Award: Hoard's Dairyman Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Communications; Dairy science Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000 per year. Funds are paid directly to the recipient. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to members who are graduating high school seniors planning to enroll full time in college. Applicants must be interested in working on a 4-year degree in dairy science. Preference is given to applicants with agricultural journalism experience. Selection is based on academic achievement (10 points for GPA, 10 points for SAT or ACT score, 10 points for class rank), leadership in FFA activities (30 points), leadership in community activities (10 points), and participation in the Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) program (30 points). U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Funding for this scholarship is provided by W.D. Hoard & Sons Company, publisher of Hoard's Dairy-man.

2500 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2501 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2502 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2503 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2504 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2505 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321
E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance to FFA members from designated states who are interested in studying agricultural business management.
Title of Award: Fastline Publications Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Business administration; Management Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 27 each year: 17 to students at 4-year colleges and universities (1 each to residents of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Wisconsin; 1 to a resident of North or South Carolina; 1 to a resident of Arkansas or Louisiana; 1 to a resident of New York or Pennsylvania; and 1 to a resident of Alabama, Florida, or Georgia); and 10 to students at 2-year colleges and vocational schools (1 each to residents of Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Texas; 1 to a resident of North or South Carolina; 1 to a resident of Arkansas or Louisiana; 1 to a resident of New York or Pennsylvania; and 1 to a resident of Alabama, Florida, or Georgia). Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000 per year. Funds are paid directly to the recipient. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to members who are graduating high school seniors planning to enroll full time in college. Applicants must be interested in working on a degree in agricultural business management and demonstrate interest in managing a farm. They must be planning to enroll at a 4-year college or university and be a resident of 22 designated states, or enroll at a 2-year college or vocational school and be a resident of 15 designated states. Selection is based on academic achievement (10 points for GPA, 10 points for SAT or ACT score, 10 points for class rank), leadership in FFA activities (30 points), leadership in community activities (10 points), and participation in the Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) program (30 points). U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Funding for these scholarships is provided by Fastline Publications.

2506 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2507 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2508 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2509 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2510 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321
E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance to FFA members, including those from specified communities, interested in studying agriculture in college.
Title of Award: Kraft Foods Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 15 each year: 4 to applicants from the designated communities and 11 selected from any state that has a Kraft facility. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000 per year. Funds are paid directly to the recipient. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to members who are either graduating high school seniors planning to enroll full time in college or students already enrolled in college on a full-time basis. Applicants must be working on or planning to work on a 4-year degree in agriculture. They must have a GPA of 3.0 or higher and be in the 75th percentile of their class. The program includes awards designated for applicants from Lowville, New York (Lowville Central FFA), Champaign, Illinois (Rantoul and Monticello FFA), Tulare, California (Tulare Western FFA), and Waupaca, Wisconsin (Waupace-Fre FFA). Selection is based on academic achievement (10 points for GPA, 10 points for SAT or ACT score, 10 points for class rank), leadership in FFA activities (30 points), leadership in community activities (10 points), and participation in the Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) program (30 points). U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: This program is sponsored by Kraft Foods, Inc.

2511 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2512 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2513 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2514 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2515 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2516 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321
E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance to FFA members interested in studying agriculture in college and then returning to the farm.
Title of Award: Montgomery Gentry/Sony Music Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 3 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $2,000 per year. Funds are paid directly to the recipient. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to members who are either graduating high school seniors planning to enroll full time in college or students already enrolled in college on a full-time basis. Applicants must be working on or planning to work on a 2-year or 4-year degree in agriculture. They must be from a family farm and have plans to return to the farm. Completion of the parent financial analysis section of the application is required. Selection is based on academic achievement (10 points for GPA, 10 points for SAT or ACT score, 10 points for class rank), leadership in FFA activities (30 points), leadership in community activities (10 points), and participation in the Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) program (30 points). U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Eddie Montgomery and Troy Gentry, the Academy of Country Music's Top New Duo or Group award winner in 1999, provide this scholarship to encourage young people to return to the farm and continue the family farm's legacy.

2517 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2518 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2519 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321
E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance to FFA members who wish to study agricultural journalism and related fields in college.
Title of Award: National FFA Scholarships for Undergraduates in the Humanities Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Communications; Horticulture; Landscape architecture and design Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: Varies; generally, a total of approximately 1,000 scholarships are awarded annually by the association. Funds Available: Stipends vary, but most are at least $1,000. Duration: 1 year or more.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to current and former members of the organization who are working or planning to work full time on a degree in fields related to agricultural journalism and communications, floriculture, and landscape design. For most of the scholarships, applicants must be high school seniors; others are open to students currently enrolled in college. The program includes a large number of designated scholarships that specify the locations where the members must live, the schools they must attend, the fields of study they must pursue, or other requirements. Some consider family income in the selection process, but most do not. Selection is based on academic achievement (10 points for GPA, 10 points for SAT or ACT score, 10 points for class rank), leadership in FFA activities (30 points), leadership in community activities (10 points), and participation in the Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) program (30 points). U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Funding for these scholarships is provided by many different corporate sponsors.

2520 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321
E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance to FFA members who wish to study agriculture and related fields in college.
Title of Award: National FFA Scholarships for Undergraduates in the Sciences Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Animal science and behavior; Dairy science; Engineering, Agricultural; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Equine studies; Food science and technology; Horticulture; Natural resources; Technology Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: Varies; generally, a total of approximately 1,000 scholarships are awarded annually by the association. Funds Available: Stipends vary, but most are at least $1,000. Duration: 1 year or more.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to current and former members of the organization who are working or planning to work full time on a degree in fields related to agriculture; this includes: agricultural mechanics and engineering, agricultural technology, animal science, conservation, dairy science, equine science, floriculture, food science, horticulture, irrigation, lawn and landscaping, and natural resources. For most of the scholarships, applicants must be high school seniors; others are open to students currently enrolled in college. The program includes a large number of designated scholarships that specify the locations where the members must live, the schools they must attend, the fields of study they must pursue, or other requirements. Some consider family income in the selection process, but most do not. Selection is based on academic achievement (10 points for GPA, 10 points for SAT or ACT score, 10 points for class rank), leadership in FFA activities (30 points), leadership in community activities (10 points), and participation in the Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) program (30 points). U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Funding for these scholarships is provided by many different corporate sponsors.

2521 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321
E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance to FFA members who wish to study agribusiness and related fields in college.
Title of Award: National FFA Scholarships for Undergraduates in the Social Sciences Area, Field, or Subject: Agribusiness; Agriculture, Economic aspects; Education; Finance; Marketing and distribution Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: Varies; generally, a total of approximately 1,000 scholarships are awarded annually by the association. Funds Available: Stipends vary, but most are at least $1,000. Duration: 1 year or more.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to current and former members of the organization who are working or planning to work full time on a degree in fields related to business and the social sciences; this includes: agribusiness, agricultural economics, agricultural education, agricultural finance, and agricultural marketing. For most of the scholarships, applicants must be high school seniors; others are open to students currently enrolled in college. The program includes a large number of designated scholarships that specify the locations where the members must live, the schools they must attend, the fields of study they must pursue, or other requirements. Some consider family income in the selection process, but most do not. Selection is based on academic achievement (10 points for GPA, 10 points for SAT or ACT score, 10 points for class rank), leadership in FFA activities (30 points), leadership in community activities (10 points), and participation in the Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) program (30 points). U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Funding for these scholarships is provided by many different corporate sponsors.

2522 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2523 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321
E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance to FFA members interested in studying agriculture or conservation in college.
Title of Award: National Wild Turkey Federation Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; Natural resources; Wildlife conservation, management, and science Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $5,000. Funds are paid directly to the recipient. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to members who are graduating high school seniors planning to enroll full time in college. Applicants must have a GPA of 3.0 or higher and be planning to attend a 2-year or 4-year college or university to major in natural resources, wildlife management, or agriculture. They must support the preservation of the hunting tradition, demonstrate a commitment to conservation, actively participate in the hunting sports, have strong leadership skills, be able to demonstrate financial need, and have work or volunteer experience in the hunting sports. Selection is based on academic achievement (10 points for GPA, 10 points for SAT or ACT score, 10 points for class rank), leadership in FFA activities (30 points), leadership in community activities (10 points), and participation in the Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) program (30 points). U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Funding for these scholarships is provided by the National Wild Turkey Federation.

2524 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321
E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance to FFA members interested in studying agriculture in college.
Title of Award: Nationwide Foundation Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 3 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000 per year. Funds are paid directly to the recipient. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to members who are graduating high school seniors planning to enroll and college students currently enrolled full time. Applicants must be working on or planning to work on a 2-year or 4-year degree in a field related to agriculture. Selection is based on academic achievement (10 points for GPA, 10 points for SAT or ACT score, 10 points for class rank), leadership in FFA activities (30 points), leadership in community activities (10 points), and participation in the Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) program (30 points). U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Funding for these scholarships is provided by the Nationwide Foundation.

2525 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2526 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321
E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance for the study of agriculture in college to FFA members with a connection to a Farmland System cooperative.
Title of Award: Kenneth and Ellen Nielsen Cooperative Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 1or more each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000. Funds are paid directly to the recipient. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to members who are graduating high school seniors or current college students working or planning to work full time on a 4-year degree in agriculture. Applicants or their parents must be members of a Farmland System cooperative or have a direct livestock producer membership in Farmland. Selection is based on academic achievement (10 points for GPA, 10 points for SAT or ACT score, 10 points for class rank), leadership in FFA activities (30 points), leadership in community activities (10 points), and participation in the Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) program (30 points). U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year.

2527 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321
E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance to current or former FFA members who are interested in studying a field related to agriculture at a college or university in designated states.
Title of Award: Norfolk Southern Foundation Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Agribusiness; Agricultural sciences; Communications; Education; Engineering, Agricultural; Finance; Forestry; Management; Marketing and distribution Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 3 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000. Funds are paid directly to the recipient. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to members who are either graduating high school seniors planning to enroll in college or students already enrolled in college. Applicants must be interested in working full time on a 4-year degree in agricultural and forestry production, communication, education, engineering, finance, management, marketing, merchandising, sales, or agricultural science. They must be planning to attend a college or university in Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, or Virginia. Selection is based on academic achievement (10 points for GPA, 10 points for SAT or ACT score, 10 points for class rank), leadership in FFA activities (30 points), leadership in community activities (10 points), and participation in the Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) program (30 points). U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Funding for these scholarships is provided by the Norfolk Southern Foundation.

2528 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2529 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2530 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2531 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321
E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance to FFA members interested in studying agriculture in college.
Title of Award: Purina Mills/Land O'Lakes Purina Feeds Dealer Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Animal science and behavior; Equine studies; Veterinary science and medicine; Wildlife conservation, management, and science Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: Varies each year, depending on the number of participating Purina dealers. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000 per year. Funds are paid directly to the recipient. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to members who are graduating high school seniors planning to enroll full time in college. Applicants must be interested in working on a 4-year college degree in agriculture. Preference is given to applicants displaying an interest in animal nutrition, aquaculture, animal science, equine science, wildlife management, or specialty animals. Selection is based on academic achievement (10 points for GPA, 10 points for SAT or ACT score, 10 points for class rank), leadership in FFA activities (30 points), leadership in community activities (10 points), and participation in the Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) program (30 points). U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Funding for these scholarships is provided by Purina Mills, LLC.

2532 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2533 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2534 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321
E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance to FFA members, especially those from designated states, interested in studying agriculture in college.
Title of Award: Seneca Foods Corporation Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 5 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000 per year. Funds are paid directly to the recipient. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to members who are either graduating high school seniors planning to enroll in college or students already enrolled in college. Applicants must be interested in working full time on a 4-year degree in agriculture. They must have a GPA of 2.0 or higher. Preference is given to residents of Idaho, Illinois, Minnesota, Washington, and Wisconsin, and if 1) the applicant or a member of the applicant's family is employed in the vegetable processing industry; 2) the applicant's family produces vegetables for processing (caning or freezing); or 3) the applicant has related work experience in vegetable processing. Selection is based on academic achievement (10 points for GPA, 10 points for SAT or ACT score, 10 points for class rank), leadership in FFA activities (30 points), leadership in community activities (10 points), and participation in the Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) program (30 points). U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Funding for this scholarship is provided by Seneca Foods Corporation of Vienna, Virginia.

2535 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2536 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2537 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2538 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321
E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance to FFA members interested in studying irrigation in college.
Title of Award: Toro Agricultural Irrigation Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Water resources Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000 per year. Funds are paid directly to the recipient. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to members who are either graduating high school seniors planning to enroll in college or students already enrolled in college. Applicants must be interested in working full time on a 4-year degree with a focus on irrigation, as confirmed by their advisor. They must have a GPA of 3.0 or higher. Selection is based on academic achievement (10 points for GPA, 10 points for SAT or ACT score, 10 points for class rank), leadership in FFA activities (30 points), leadership in community activities (10 points), and participation in the Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) program (30 points). U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Funding for this scholarship is provided by Toro Agricultural Irrigation.

2539 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321
E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance to FFA members from designated states interested in working on a college degree in agriculture, especially agricultural engineering or technology,
Title of Award: Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Engineering, Agricultural; General studies/Field of study not specified Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 10 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $2,500 per year. Funds are paid directly to the recipient. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to members who are graduating high school seniors or current college students. Applicants must be residents of Alabama, California, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Texas, or West Virginia, and planning to work full time on a 4-year degree. They may study any area of agriculture, but preference is given to agricultural engineering or agricultural science/technology majors. Their application must include the parent financial analysis section. Selection is based on academic achievement (10 points for GPA, 10 points for SAT or ACT score, 10 points for class rank), leadership in FFA activities (30 points), leadership in community activities (10 points), and participation in the Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) program (30 points). If those criteria are equal, the applicants with the greatest financial need are selected. U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Funds for this scholarship are provided by Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. Winners must allow Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. to publicize or advertise scholarship winners' names or likenesses and those of their families.

2540 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321
E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance to FFA members from specified states interested in studying agriculture in college.
Title of Award: Tractor Supply Company Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 1 or more each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $3,000. Funds are paid directly to the recipient. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to members who are graduating high school seniors planning to enroll full time in college. Applicants must be residents of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, or Wisconsin. They must be interested in working on a 4-year degree in agriculture. Selection is based on academic achievement (10 points for GPA, 10 points for SAT or ACT score, 10 points for class rank), leadership in FFA activities (30 points), leadership in community activities (10 points), and participation in the Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) program (30 points). Financial need is also considered. U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Funding for this scholarship is provided by Tractor Supply Company of Nashville, Tennessee. Recipients must be willing to allow Tractor Supply Company to use photographs of themselves and their families for company advertising.

2541 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2542 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321
E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance to FFA members currently studying agriculture in college.
Title of Award: United Agri Products Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 10 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,300 per year. Funds are paid directly to the recipient. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to members currently enrolled full time in college and working on a 4-year degree in agriculture. Applicants must have a GPA of 3.0 or higher and be able to demonstrate financial need. Selection is based on academic achievement (10 points for GPA, 10 points for SAT or ACT score, 10 points for class rank), leadership in FFA activities (30 points), leadership in community activities (10 points), and participation in the Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) program (30 points). U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Funding for these scholarships is provided by United Agri Products.

2543 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321
E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance to FFA members who are interested in studying journalism in college.
Title of Award: Vance Publishing Corporation Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Communications; Journalism Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000. Funds are paid directly to the recipient. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to members who are graduating high school seniors planning to enroll full time in college. Applicants must be interested in working on a 4-year degree with a preference for agricultural journalism. Selection is based on academic achievement (10 points for GPA, 10 points for SAT or ACT score, 10 points for class rank), leadership in FFA activities (30 points), leadership in community activities (10 points), and participation in the Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) program (30 points). U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Funding for this scholarship is provided by Vance Publishing Corporation.

2544 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2545 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321
E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance to FFA members from designated states who are interested in studying a field related to agriculture in college.
Title of Award: Wilbur-Ellis Company Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Agribusiness; Agricultural sciences; Agriculture, Economic aspects; Animal science and behavior; Biochemistry; Business administration; Computer and information sciences; Entomology; Finance; Forestry; Genetics; Horticulture; Management; Marketing and distribution; Poultry science; Soil science Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 13 each year: 1 at $5,000, 2 at $2,000, and 10 at $1,000. Funds Available: Stipends are $5,000, $2,000, or $1,000 per year. Funds are paid directly to the recipient. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to members who are graduating high school seniors planning to enroll or college students currently enrolled full time. Applicants must be residents of the following states: Arizona, California, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, or Wyoming. They must be planning to work on a 4-year degree in agricultural production, forest management, agronomy and crop science, animal nutrition, farm and ranch management, horticulture, nursery and landscape management, plant science, poultry science, general agriculture, business management, economics, international agriculture, finance, sales and marketing, biochemistry, biotechnology, computer systems in agriculture, entomology, plant breeding and genetics, plant pathology, range science, or soil science. Their combined SAT score must be 1000 or higher and their GPA must be 3.0 or higher. Selection is based on academic achievement (10 points for GPA, 10 points for SAT or ACT score, 10 points for class rank), leadership in FFA activities (30 points), leadership in community activities (10 points), and participation in the Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) program (30 points). Financial need is also considered in the selection process. U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Funding for this scholarship is provided by the agriculture division of the Wilbur-Ellis Company.

2546 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2547 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

2548 ■ NATIONAL FFA ORGANIZATION

Attn: Scholarship Office
6060 FFA Drive
P.O. Box 68960
Indianapolis, IN 46268-0960
Tel: (317)802-4321
Fax: (317)802-5321
E-mail: scholarships@ffa.org
Web Site: http://www.ffa.org
To provide financial assistance to FFA members from selected states who are interested in majoring in agriculture in college.
Title of Award: Stephen M. Yoder Foundation/American Soybean Association Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 2 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000. Funds are paid directly to the recipient. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to members who are either graduating high school seniors planning to enroll in college or students already enrolled in college. Applicants must be interested in working full time on a 4-year degree in agriculture at an accredited institution. They must be residents of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, or Wisconsin. Selection is based on academic achievement (10 points for GPA, 10 points for SAT or ACT score, 10 points for class rank), leadership in FFA activities (30 points), leadership in community activities (10 points), and participation in the Supervised Agricultural Experience (SAE) program (30 points). U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Funding for these scholarships is provided by the Stephen M. Yoder Foundation and the American Soybean Association.

2549 ■ NATIONAL POULTRY AND FOOD DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION

Attn: NPFDA Scholarship Foundation
958 McEver Road Extension, Unit B-8
Gainesville, GA 30504
Tel: (770)535-9901; 877-845-1545
Fax: (770)535-7385
E-mail: info@npfda.org
Web Site: http://www.npfda.org
To provide financial assistance to students enrolled in fields related to the poultry and food industries.
Title of Award: NPFDA Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Agriculture, Economic aspects; Food science and technology; Nutrition; Poultry science Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: 4 each year. Funds Available: Stipends range from $1,500 to $2,000. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to full-time students entering their junior or senior year of college. Applicants must be studying poultry science, food science, agricultural economics or marketing, nutrition, or another area related to the poultry industry. Along with their application, they must submit a 1-page narrative on their goals and ambitions and their transcripts. Selection is based on academic excellence, past and current involvement in poultry and food-related activities, and professional objectives. Deadline for Receipt: May of each year. Additional Information: The National Poultry and Food Distributors Association (NPFDA) established its Scholarship Foundation in 1979. The following named scholarships are included in the program: the Albin S. Johnson Memorial Scholarship, the William Manson Family Memorial Scholarship, and the Alfred Schwartz Memorial Scholarship.

2550 ■ NEBRASKA FARM BUREAU

Attn: Young Farmers & Ranchers
5225 South 16th Street
P.O. Box 80299
Lincoln, NE 68501
Tel: (402)421-4750
Fax: (402)421-4432
E-mail: cathyd@nefb.org
Web Site: http://www.nefb.org/yfr/default.aspx
To provide financial assistance to members of the Nebraska Farm Bureau who plan to study agriculture in college.
Title of Award: Greater Horizon Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 1 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to residents of Nebraska who belong to a member family of a county farm bureau of have their own membership. Applicants must be between 18 and 35 years of age and planning to enroll full time in a college or university agricultural program. Along with their application, they must submit a brief statement on what they wish to do 1 year following college graduation and their long-range goals over the next 5 to 10 years. Financial need is also considered in the selection process. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year.

2551 ■ NORTHWEST FARM CREDIT SERVICES

Attn: Marketing Department
P.O. Box 2515
Spokane, WA 99220
Tel: (509)340-5207
Free: 800-743-2125
Fax: 800-255-1789
E-mail: farm-credit@accountlist.com
Web Site: http://www.farm-credit.com
To provide financial assistance for college to residents of designated northwestern states who are customers or children of customers of Northwest Farm Credit Services.
Title of Award: Farm Credit Scholarship Program Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; General studies/Field of study not specified Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 32 each year. From each of the 4 states, 6 high school seniors and 2 college students are awarded scholarships. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,000. Duration: 1 year; nonrenewable.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to 1) high school seniors who are children of customers and planning to attend an institution of higher education, and 2) college juniors and seniors who are customers. Applicants must be residents of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, or Washington. All academic majors are eligible, but preference is given to students who are preparing for a career related to agriculture. Along with their application, they must submit a 250-word essay describing their plans for higher education, how they will benefit from that education, and how the scholarship will help them financially. Selection is based on the essay (15 points), scholastic performance (5 points), leadership (10 points), and participation in extracurricular activities (10 points). Deadline for Receipt: March of each year.

2552 ■ OAK RIDGE INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND EDUCATION

Attn: Science and Engineering Education
P.O. Box 117
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0117
Tel: (865)576-8239
Fax: (865)241-5219
E-mail: igrid.gregory@orau.gov
Web Site: http://www.orau.gov/orise.htm
To provide financial assistance and summer research experience to undergraduate students who are working on a degree in a field of interest to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Title of Award: Department of Homeland Security Undergraduate Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Biological and clinical sciences; Communications; Computer and information sciences; Engineering; Information science and technology; Mathematics and mathematical sciences; Physical sciences; Psychology; Public administration; Religion; Social sciences; Writing Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: Approximately 50 each year. Funds Available: This program provides a stipend of $1,000 per month during the academic year and $5,000 for the internship plus full payment of tuition and mandatory fees. Duration: 2 academic years plus 10 weeks during the intervening summer.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to 1) full-time students who are in their second year of college attendance as of the application deadline; and 2) part-time students who have completed at least 45 but no more than 60 semester hours as of the application deadline. Applicants must be majoring in the agricultural sciences, biological and life sciences, computer and information sciences, engineering, mathematics, physical sciences, psychology, social sciences, or selected humanities (religious studies, cultural studies, public policy, advocacy, communications, or science writing). They must have a GPA of 3.3 or higher. Along with their application, they must submit 2 statements on 1) their educational and professional goals, the kinds of research they are interested in conducting, specific questions that interest them, and how they became interested in them; and 2) how they think their interests, talents, and initiative would contribute to make the homeland safer and secure. Selection is based on those statements, academic record, references, and SAT or ACT scores, As part of their program, they must be interested in participating in summer research and development activities at a DHS-designated facility. U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: January of each year. Additional Information: This program, established in 2003, is funded by DHS and administered by Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE). Recipients must enroll full time.

2553 ■ OAK RIDGE INSTITUTE FOR SCIENCE AND EDUCATION

Attn: Science and Engineering Education
P.O. Box 117
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0117
Tel: (865)241-8240
Fax: (865)241-5219
E-mail: hollingsscholarship@orau.gov
Web Site: http://www.orau.gov/orise.htm
To provide financial assistance and summer research experience to upper-division students who are working on a degree in a field of interest to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Title of Award: Ernest F. Hollings Scholarship Program Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Behavioral sciences; Biological and clinical sciences; Computer and information sciences; Education; Engineering; Information science and technology; Mathematics and mathematical sciences; Physical sciences; Social sciences Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College Number Awarded: Approximately 100 each year. Funds Available: This program provides a stipend of $8,000 per academic year and $650 per week during the internship, a housing subsidy and limited travel reimbursement for round-trip transportation to the internship site, and travel expenses to the scholarship program conference at the completion of the internship. Duration: 2 academic years plus 10 weeks during the intervening summer.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to full-time students entering their junior year at an accredited college or university in the United States or its territories. Applicants must be majoring in a discipline related to oceanic and atmospheric science, research, technology, and education, and supportive of the purposes of NOAA's programs and mission (e.g., biological, life, and agricultural sciences; computer and information sciences; engineering; mathematics; physical sciences; social and behavioral sciences; or teacher education). They must have a GPA of 3.0 or higher. As part of their program, they must be interested in participating in summer research and development activities at NOAA headquarters (Silver Spring, Maryland) or field centers. U.S. citizenship is required. Deadline for Receipt: May of each year. Additional Information: This program, established in 2005, is funded by NOAA and administered by Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE).

2554 ■ SCHOLARSHIP ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, INC.

Attn: ALfA Program
2000 Rock Street, Suite 3
Mountain View, CA 94043
To provide financial assistance to undergraduate and graduate students working on a degree in a field related to agriculture.
Title of Award: AgLife for America Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Graduate, Undergraduate Number Awarded: Up to 20 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $5,000 per year. Duration: 1 year; may be renewed 1 additional year if the recipient maintains full-time enrollment and a GPA of 3.0 or higher.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to full-time students working on or planning to work on an undergraduate or graduate degree in an agriculture-related field. Applicants must have a GPA of 3.0 or higher and be able to demonstrate a record of involvement in extracurricular and work activities related to agriculture. Along with their application, they must submit a 1,000-word essay on their educational and career goals, why they believe agriculture is essential to America, and why they have decided to prepare for a career in agriculture. Financial need is not considered in the selection process. Deadline for Receipt: April of each year. Additional Information: This program is sponsored by AgLife for America (ALfA) and administered by Scholarship Administrative Services, Inc. ALfA was established in 2003 to encourage more American students to consider remaining on the farm. Requests for applications should be accompanied by a self-addressed stamped envelope, the student's e-mail address, and the source where they found the scholarship information.

2555 ■ SOUTH CAROLINA STUDENT LOAN CORPORATION

Interstate Center
16 Berryhill Road, Suite 210
P.O. Box 21487
Columbia, SC 29221-1487
Tel: (803)798-0916
Free: 800-347-2752
Fax: (803)772-9410
Web Site: http://www.slc.sc.edu
To provide scholarship/loans to students in South Carolina who wish to teach certain subjects or in certain geographic areas.
Title of Award: South Carolina Teacher Loan Program Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Classical studies; Consumer affairs; Dance; Education, Elementary; Education, Music; Education, Special; English language and literature; Foreign languages; Library and archival sciences; Mathematics and mathematical sciences; Science; Speech and language pathology/audiology; Technology Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Graduate, Undergraduate Number Awarded: Varies each year. Funds Available: Freshmen and sophomores may borrow up to $2,500 per academic year; juniors, seniors, and graduate students may borrow up to $5,000 per academic year. This is a scholarship/loan program; loans are forgivable at the rate of 20% or $3,000, whichever is greater, for each full year of teaching in an area (either geographic or subject) of critical need; for students who teach in both critical subject and geographic areas, the rate of cancellation is 33% or $5,000, whichever is greater, per year. Borrowers who fail to teach in either a critical subject or geographic area must repay the loan at an annual interest rate that varies (currently, 5.37%) but is capped at 10.25%. Duration: 1 year; may be renewed for a total of 5 years of undergraduate and 5 years of graduate study.
Eligibility Requirements: Eligible to apply are residents of South Carolina who are planning to teach in certain critical geographic areas of the state, or to teach in critical subject areas. Entering freshmen must have ranked in the top 40% of their high school class and have an ACT or SAT score greater than the South Carolina average (recently 986 on the SAT or 19.3 on the ACT); enrolled undergraduates or entering graduate students must have at least a 2.75 cumulative GPA; graduate students who have completed at least 1 term must have a GPA of 3.5 or better. Undergraduate students at South Carolina colleges must have taken and passed the Education Entrance Exam; students at institutions outside South Carolina must have completed the necessary prerequisites required at that institution. Only U.S. citizens may apply. Deadline for Receipt: May of each year. Additional Information: Recently, the critical subject areas include mathematics, science (biology, chemistry, physics, and general science), media specialist, special education, industrial technology, foreign languages (Spanish, French, Latin, and German), family and consumer science, art, music, business education, English and language arts, dance, speech and drama/theater, and agriculture. For a list of critical geographic area, contact the sponsor.

2556 ■ TEXAS 4-H YOUTH DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION

Attn: Executive Director
Texas A&M University
7606 Eastmark Drive, Suite 101
College Station, TX 77843-2473
Tel: (979)845-1213
Fax: (979)845-6495
E-mail: texas4-hscholarships@tamu.edu
Web Site: http://texas4-h.tamu.edu/scholarships
To provide financial assistance to high school seniors who have been active in Texas 4-H activities in spite of unforeseen obstacles related to their medical/health, family, and/or educational situation.
Title of Award: Texas 4-H Youth Development Foundation Courageous Heart Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; General studies/Field of study not specified Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: The foundation awards approximately 170 scholarships, worth more than $1.2 million, for all of its programs each year. Funds Available: Stipends range from $1,500 to $10,000, depending on the contributions from various donors. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to graduating seniors at high schools in Texas who have been actively participating in 4-H and plan to attend a college, university, or accredited technical school in the state. Candidates must be nominated by a community leader, such as county extension agent, education, elected official, religious leader, or 4-H community volunteer or leader. Nominees must have passed all sections of the TAAS, THEA, and/or TAKS test and be able to demonstrate financial need. They must be able to present documentation and testimonials to 1 of the following life obstacles: 1) medical or health conditions such as major surgeries with lasting effects, cancer and/or other diseases, long-term illnesses, or physical disabilities; 2) family situations, such as death of a family member, family housing, parental employment, or income obstacles; or 3) educational obstacles, including dyslexia or other learning disabilities. Some scholarships require a major in agriculture; others are unrestricted. Deadline for Receipt: Nominations must be submitted directly to the Texas 4-H Youth Development Foundation office by March of each year. Additional Information: Students who apply to the Texas FFA Association or the Texas chapter of Family, Career and Community Leaders of America (FCCLA) for a scholarship will have their 4-H application voided.

2557 ■ TREE RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ENDOWMENT FUND

Attn: Executive Director
711 East Roosevelt Road
Wheaton, IL 60187
Tel: (630)221-8127
Fax: (630)690-0702
E-mail: treefund@treefund.org
Web Site: http://www.treefund.org/grants/Grants.aspx
To provide financial assistance to undergraduate and technical school students interested in preparing for a career in commercial arboriculture.
Title of Award: Robert Felix Memorial Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Entomology; Horticulture; Landscape architecture and design; Soil science Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: 4 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $3,000. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to student members of the International Society of Arboriculture who are entering the second year of a 2-year program or the third or fourth year of a 4-year program. Applicants must be preparing for a career in commercial arboriculture. They must have a GPA of 3.0 or higher. Along with their application, they must submit a 1,000-word essay describing their reasons for pursuing their chosen career, their goals and objectives, and why they should be chosen for this scholarship. Financial need is not considered in the selection process. Deadline for Receipt: April of each year. Additional Information: The Tree Research and Education Endowment (TREE) Fund was established in 2002 as the result of a merger of the International Society of Arboriculture Research Trust (established in 1976) and the National Arborist Foundation (established in 1985). Fields of study often considered appropriate for a career in commercial arboriculture include agriculture, entomology, horticulture, landscape architecture, or soils science.

2558 ■ HARRY S. TRUMAN SCHOLARSHIP FOUNDATION

Attn: Executive Secretary
712 Jackson Place, N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: (202)395-4831
Fax: (202)395-6995
E-mail: office@truman.gov
Web Site: http://www.truman.gov
To provide grants-for-service for graduate school to current college juniors who are interested in preparing for a career in public service.
Title of Award: Harry S. Truman Scholarship Program Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; Biological and clinical sciences; Economics; Education; Engineering; Environmental conservation; Environmental science; History; International affairs and relations; Law; Physical sciences; Political science; Public administration; Public health; Public service; Social sciences; Technology Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Four Year College, Graduate Number Awarded: 70 to 75 each year: a) 1 "state" scholarship is available to a qualified resident nominee in each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Islands (Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands); and b) up to 25 at-large scholars. Funds Available: The program provides up to $30,000, including up to $15,000 for the first year of graduate study and up to $15,000 for the final year of graduate study. Duration: Support is provided for the first and last year of graduate study.
Eligibility Requirements: Students must be nominated to be considered for this program. Nominees must be full-time students with junior standing at a 4-year institution, committed to a career in government or public service, in the upper quarter of their class, and U.S. citizens or nationals. Each participating institution may nominate up to 4 candidates (and up to 3 additional students who completed their first 2 years at a community college); community colleges and other 2-year institutions may nominate former students who are enrolled as full-time students with junior-level academic standing at accredited 4-year institutions. Selection is based on extent and quality of community service and government involvement, academic performance, leadership record, suitability of the nominee's proposed program of study for a career in public service, and writing and analytical skills. Priority is given to candidates who plan to enroll in a graduate program that specifically trains them for a career in public service, including government at any level, uniformed services, public interest organizations, nongovernmental research and/or educational organizations, public and private schools, and public service oriented nonprofit organizations. The fields of study may include agriculture, biology, engineering, environmental management, physical and social sciences, and technology policy, as well as such traditional fields as economics, education, government, history, international relations, law, nonprofit management, political science, public administration, public health, and public policy. Interviews are required. Deadline for Receipt: February of each year. Additional Information: Recipients may attend graduate school in the United States or in foreign countries. Scholars are required to work in public service for 3 of the 7 years following completion of a graduate degree program funded by this program. Scholars who do not meet this service requirement, or who fail to provide timely proof to the foundation of such employment, will be required to repay funds received, along with interest.

2559 ■ UTAH GOLF ASSOCIATION

Attn: Scholarship Committee
9121 South 150 West, Suite D
P.O. Box 5601
Sandy, UT 84091-5601
Tel: (801)563-0400
Fax: (801)563-0632
Web Site: http://www.uga.org/awards/scholarship/index.html
To provide financial assistance for college or graduate school to students in Utah who have been active in golf.
Title of Award: Utah Golf Association Scholarships Area, Field, or Subject: Agricultural sciences; General studies/Field of study not specified; Turfgrass management Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Graduate, Undergraduate Number Awarded: At least 3 each year. Funds Available: The stipend is $1,200. Duration: 1 year.
Eligibility Requirements: This program is open to students enrolled or planning to enroll at a postsecondary institution in Utah. Preference is given to applicants already in college or working on an advanced degree. At least 1 scholarship is reserved for a student interested in preparing for a career in agronomy, turf grass management, or as a golf course superintendent. Applicants have been involved in golf, but skill is not considered. They must describe their long-range educational and occupational goals and objectives, what they like about golf, and their background, interested, and future plans in golf. Selection is based on educational experience, achievements, GPA, test scores, goals, and objectives (25%); leadership, extracurricular activities, work experience, volunteerism, and character (25%); golf affiliation and interest (25%); and financial need (25%). Deadline for Receipt: April of each year.

2560 ■ VERMONT STUDENT ASSISTANCE CORPORATION

Champlain Mill
Attn: Scholarship Programs
P.O. Box 2000
Winooski, VT 05404-2601
Tel: (802)654-3798; 888-253-4819
Fax: (802)654-3765
E-mail: info@vsac.org
Web Site: http://www.vsac.org
To provide financial assistance to residents of Vermont who are interested in majoring in an agriculture-related field in college.
Title of Award: Vermont Feed Dealers and Manufacturers Association Scholarship Area, Field, or Subject: Agribusiness; Agricultural sciences; Animal science and behavior; Botany; Equine studies; Forestry; Horticulture; Soil science; Veterinary science and medicine Level of Education for which Award is Granted: Undergraduate Number Awarded: Varies each year; recently, 6 of these scholarships were awarded. Funds Available: The maximum stipend is $3,000. Duration: 1 year; recipients may reapply.
Eligibility Requirements: This scholarship is available to high school seniors, high school graduates, and currently-enrolled college students in Vermont who are enrolled or planning to enroll in a postsecondary degree program in agriculture, including but not limited to animal sciences, equine studies, agribusiness, plant and soil science, forestry, horticulture, and veterinary medicine or technology. Selection is based on a letter of recommendation and required essays. Deadline for Receipt: June of each year.

College Blue Book

Agriculture

views updated May 18 2018

AGRICULTURE

AGRICULTURE , the cultivation of plants for food and other ends, as opposed to the use of plants as they grow naturally in man's environment, is a rather recent phenomenon if considered relative to the time scale of the development of Homo sapiens. Scholars now agree in dating the most ancient archaeological traces of plant cultivation to the eighth or seventh millennium bce and in indicating not the valleys of the Tigris-Euphrates and Nile, where the most ancient urban civilizations are attested, but the higher lands lying both west and east of Mesopotamia as the original cradles of agriculture. The Natufian culture of Palestine and other similar communities and cultural complexes in Kurdistan (Zawi Chemi Shanidar) and northern Iraq (Karim Shahir) used noncultivated (wild) wheat and barley.

The first traces of agriculture proper are found in sites such as Jericho (c. 7500 bce), Jarmo (Iraqi Kurdistan), Tepe Sarab (Iranian Kurdistan), and Çatal Hüyük (Anatolia) and can be dated to the seventh millennium at the latest; the Palestinian early agrarian culture of the Yarmuk basin and the cultures of Al-Fayyum (Egypt) and of Tepe Siyalk (Iran) probably belong to the sixth millennium. Some scholars consider the oldest agricultural communities of eastern Europe to be almost as ancient as these Asian civilizations; recently traces of very early plant cultivation (peas, beans, etc.) have been found in Thailand.

The introduction of agriculture is not an isolated phenomenon. It develops with the beginnings of animal domestication and with a growth both in the population in general and in the size of settlements (some of the early agricultural settlements of the cultures cited above, such as Jericho in Palestine, cover a wide area, are fortified, and contain towers and buildings constructed for collective, ceremonial use). The origin of agriculture is also linked to the invention of pottery and to more sophisticated techniques for making stone tools and weapons, although these last innovations are not always synchronic with the introduction of cultivation. Although the term Neolithic revolution, made popular by V. Gordon Childe, expresses well the enormous importance of this series of radical innovations, the process was a slow one, extending across several millennia. According to recent studies, the history of early forms of cultivation can be divided into three long phases: (1) the final phase of the gathering economy; (2) the beginnings of plant cultivation and of animal domestication; and (3) the era of efficient village agriculture.

Although the beginnings of cultivation must be identified with the process just described, which took place in a small area of Asia and Europe and involved the domestication of wild cereals, in premodern times the cultivation of plants had already spread to all continents, and the Neolithic revolution had taken place in most of the inhabited world. At the beginning of the modern era, cultivation was present in the indigenous cultures of all lands, with the exceptions of Australia, the Arctic (for obvious climatic reasons), a wide part of North America (the central Great Plains, inhabited only recently by the buffalo-hunting Plains Indians), and smaller, isolated parts of other continents (usually those areas covered with tropical or equatorial forests and inhabited by bands of hunter-gatherers). Scholars still debate whether the presence of plant cultivation throughout the globe should be considered the result of a process of diffusion from the most ancient cradle of agriculture in the Old World or the result of a series of independent inventions. However this question is approached, one should keep in mind that cultivation is far from uniform and is far from corresponding everywhere to the model of cerealiculture in Europe and western Asia. Indeed, if we leave aside the relatively recent modifications brought about by European colonization of other continents, six geographical, ecological, and cultural zones can be distinguished according to the types or groups of plants cultivated. The zones are as follows

wheat zone: from Europe to China; secondary cereals: barley, spelt, oats; instrument: the plow
rice zone: from India to Indonesia to southern China; instruments: plow and hoe
millet and sorghum zone: sub-Saharan Africa; instrument: hoe
yam and taro zone: New Guinea, Melanesia, Polynesia; secondary plants: coconut palm, sago palm; instruments: digging stick and hoe
maize zone: America, from eastern North America through Central America and the Andes to northern Chile and Argentina; secondary plants: in the north—beans and pumpkins; in the south—potato and quinoa; instruments; digging stick and spade
manioc (cassava) zone: Amazonian area and tropical America; secondary plants: peanuts, sweet potato; instruments: digging stick and spade

As for the problem of the origin of cultivation in areas outside the original western Asian-eastern European zone where cerealiculture began, there is increasing agreement on the common origin of the cultivation of cereals in the Old World (although older, more complex theories still have their followers). Specialists still disagree, however, on both the relationship between the origins of cultivation in the New and the Old World (a more recent, autonomous invention of cultivation in America seems more probable) and the relative ages of cereal and noncereal cultivation. According to some, the cultivation of noncereal plants (mainly tubers) is an impoverished imitation of cerealiculture, whereas other scholars consider the cultivation of noncereal plants to be older than cerealiculture. This last hypothesis seems more probably correct, at least in the case of some areas of the Americas. Excavations in Venezuela and in Colombia show that cassava was cultivated there long before maize; moreover, as mentioned earlier, very ancient traces of noncereal cultivation have been discovered in Thailand.

The importance of the slow technological and economic (Neolithic) revolution that led many societies from a hunting and gathering economy to plant cultivation and animal husbandry is indeed enormous; the only phenomenon we can compare it to is the great technological revolution of early modern times, which led many societies, in a much shorter timespan, into the modern industrial era. In transforming Homo sapiens from a mere consumer of natural goods into a producer, the development of agriculture drastically changed the role of humanity within its environment, and thus the very nature of humankind. Moreover, it permitted a vast transformation of human life and activity, involving both a demographic increase and the rise of more complex human settlements and communities. Agriculture required an increasingly greater specialization, differentiation, and stratification within societies, and made possible and indeed necessary the "urban revolution" that was to follow within three or four millennia in Mesopotamia and Egypt. The consequences of this development in the domain of religious life were far greater than can be illustrated in this article, which deals exclusively with religious phenomena directly connected to cultivation. The historical roots of complex phenomena such as polytheism, the so-called gift-sacrifice, and priesthood, to name but three examples, lie in the humus prepared by the Neolithic revolution.

Our knowledge of the religiosity of Neolithic cultures is limited not only by an obvious factor, the lack of any written evidence, but also by a less obvious one, the abundance of totally conjectural modern "reconstructions," based upon archaeological data. Even more limiting are a misconceived comparison between modern "primitive" cultivators and the peasant cultures of more complex historical societies and the generalizations of nineteenth-century scholarship. The data furnished by sites such as Jericho (Palestine) and Çatal Hüyük and Hacilar (Anatolia) point to the cult of anthropomorphic, mainly female, beings of various types and to rituals of the dead (in particular to the preservation and treatment of human skulls), as well as to the importance of animals such as birds of prey, bulls, and leopards, often depicted in wall paintings. The cult was often domestic, but shrines of various sizes and shapes have been found, richly decorated with paintings and sculptures. The first monumental sanctuaries, however, seem to belong to the later, Mesopotamian culture of Al-Ubayyid, dated from the end of the fifth to the beginning of the fourth millennium.

The Ritual Calendar and the Great Feast

Although hunter-gatherer communities also organize their lives on a seasonal basis, the yearly rhythm of labors is vital to cultivators and implies both a cyclical perception of time and the necessity of organizing the yearly sequence with a new precision. The introduction of cultivation is thus historically connected to the introduction of a calendar that responds to the technological and ritual needs of that specific form of production. The ritual aspects of cultivation and the rhythmic periodicity of that economic form, in which periods of great abundance are followed by periods of scarcity, require strong differentiations in time and the concentration of ritual actions and festive behavior in specific, recurring periods or days of the year. The yearly calendar of cultivators is thus a festive and ritual calendar.

The festive calendars of ancient societies, even though they are often connected with more complex liturgical, mythological, and even theological conceptions, as well as with "political" celebrations, easily reveal their agricultural basis. Thus, the three main Israelite feasts recorded in the Bible are a feast of the beginning of the barley harvest, a summer feast of the end of the wheat harvest (Shavuʿot), and an autumn feast of ingathering, celebrating the collecting and storing of (noncereal) cultivated fruits (Sukkot or Asif).

Likewise, the Attic calendar of Classical times included a feast preliminary to the plowing (Proerosia) immediately followed by the feast of the Boiling of Beans (Puanopsia), then by the ritual begging for gifts by children who carried a decorated branch of olive or laurel (eiresiōnē ), and by processions of people carrying bunches of grapes hanging from their branches (Oscophoria) or other, less easily identified objects (Thesmophoria). The other main agricultural feasts of the Attic calendar were the spring festival of flowers and new wine (Anthesteria), the wine festival of Dionysos (Dionusia), the feasts of purification and offerings in preparation for harvesting (Thargelia), and the sacrifice of a plow ox at the time of harvest (Bouphonia).

The Roman archaic calendar includes a series of spring feasts dedicated to the worship of agrarian deities (in March and April: Liberalia, Consualia, Vinalia Priora, Robigalia); a series of spring purification rites, connected to the return of the dead and to the gathering of broad beans (in May: purification fields, Lemuria, Kalendae Fabariae); summer festivals connected with the harvesting and with the new wine (in August: Vinalia Rustica, feast of Opeconsiva); a series of winter feasts of the plowing season (from December 15 to 21: Consualia, Saturnalia, Opalia, Divalia, Larentalia); a winter feast for the protection of sown cereals (in January: Feriae Sementivae); and a winter month of purification of people and fields (in February).

The agricultural origin of most yearly festivals in modern, as well as in ancient, cultivating societies can just as easily be demonstrated. Here it suffices to cite the great Indian festivals of Dussehra and Dīvālī; the former marks the end of the rainy season and the beginning of agricultural labors and is concluded by a ritual quest for alms by people carrying small fresh shoots of barley plants, while the latter is a New Year-like festival celebrating the sowing of the winter crops.

The agricultural and festive calendars of cultivators outside of the wheat zone are no less rich and complex. The structure of the calendar and the types of festivals vary according to the ecological and climatic conditions, the types of plants cultivated, and the cultural and social structure of the various societies, as is shown by the following three examples.

The Arapesh of northeastern New Guinea, who now cultivate a wide range of plants of various origins, are ruled by an archaic ritual calendar that is based on the cultivation of yams and reflects a time system simpler than the one now in use for cultivation. The main feast, the Abullu, is based upon the exhibition of each cultivator's yam produce, followed by the performance of special Abullu dances and songs, which center on the most recent death of an important member of the community, and by the distribution of yams to the guests by each producer. The producer may not consume the yams himself and must be ritually purified before the feast, for he is considered to be in a state similar to that of parents immediately after childbirth.

The rice-growing Ao-Naga of northeastern India have a complex festive calendar with three main feasts. The Moatsu feast, celebrated at the end of the sowing period, is preceded by a night of sexual abstinence and consists of a ritual suspension of order (the rigid rules relative to clothing and ornaments are not enforced; no Ao-Naga can be fined for transgression) and of the renewal of the belts that hold the men's dao ("daggers"). The Aobi feast precedes the beginning of the agricultural labors, and marks the end of the period during which the Ao-Naga travel and trade. Its central feature is the explusion of impurities from the village, both through the disposal of the garbage collected from the various households by a priest and by the symbolic concentration of impurities on the first stranger who enters the village area. Finally, the end of the agricultural labors is marked by a feast, called Tsungremmung, mainly dedicated to the worship of beings called tsungrem. The greatest of the tsungrem, Lichaba, a creator figure, is the main recipient of the festive offerings; pieces of pork are left out for him to consume in all the dwellings that are located at the edges of the village.

The Venda of Transvaal, in South Africa, cultivate maize and other plants (sweet potatoes, beans, pumpkins, melons) of various types and origins. Their main festivals celebrate the sowing and the harvesting. Before the sowing, each cultivator sends a small amount of mixed seeds to the lineage chief, who prepares a sacred food by cooking all the seeds together; the food is then offered to the ancestors, and a rich harvest is asked of them. A similar rite takes place in the chief's field, with the participation of the whole community; on their way to the field the young girls collect firewood to cook the offering, and beat whomever they meet with rods (the rods may be a fertility symbol). The chief announces the beginning of the harvesting. There was a time when anyone who began harvesting before the announcement would be killed. The chief celebrates a private rite; a "public" rite then takes place in the chief's field, and each lineage celebrates its own rite in the lineage chief's field. The preliminary rites consist of an offering of sugar cane to the sacred animals and of preparation of beer by women. The young people then perform a sacred dance; the sacred bull and its cow are led into the chief's kraal and asperged with beer, while the makhadzi (the sister of the former chief) recites a prayer to the ancestors, saying: "I give you the first grains of the yearly harvest; eat and be well; but what is now still in the fields, you should leave to us." Listing all the names of ancestors she can remember, the makhadzi adds that the prayer is also directed to those ancestors whose names have been forgotten. The tombs and the places where the spirits of the dead dwell are then ceremoniously visited, and offerings are left in special places for the wild animals (leopards, serpents, etc.) into which the dead are believed to be transformed.

The Venda's harvest rituals are typical of the most important and widespread agricultural feast: the feast of harvesting and of first fruits. This is first of all a feast of abundance after the long months of working and of waiting, of success after the yearly risks and dangers represented by the uncertainties of rainfall and weather. Thus, it is celebrated by more or less unrestricted license and by excessive consumption. At the same time, it is a moment of great crisis, both because it causes excessive consumption and suspends productive work and because of the risk that accompanies any liminal period as, specifically, the consumption of the first products of the year's labor. The great feast of abundance and license is thus also celebrated with "protective" rituals, such as ritual consecration of first fruits, purification and renewal of the community, and offerings and sacrifices (sometimes human sacrifice, as for example among the Aztec of Mexico or the Dravidian Khond of eastern India) to various entities.

The consumption of the first part of the new harvest involves the end of a seasonal cycle of cultivation and the beginning of a new one, and thus a renewal of time: the harvest festival is a New Year feast, and the festive sacrifice is seen as a cosmogonic act. In the great feast, the whole world starts afresh, so that order is often ritually suspended, only to be reinstated, as happened at the beginning of time.

This suspension (and reinstatement) of the social and cosmic order is the profound religious meaning of an important aspect of many seasonal festivals of cultivators and, in particular, of harvest festivals: the ritual orgy. Indeed, if envisaged in this context of periodic "rebirth," the orgy is a temporary suspension of the normal order of a given society in favor of an "excessive" collective behavior (music, dance, banqueting, sexual intercourse) that is meant to sanction the festive period and to renew and reinforce the vital energies of the social group. Orgiastic behavior on special or festive occasions is attested among all societies, but orgies have a specific importance and a particular meaning for cultivators. Alimentary orgies are extremely frequent and important; they are most often a celebration of the harvest, a ritual response to the sudden and disconcerting abundance of food after the long months of efforts and risks. Sexual orgies are also frequent (they are attested among many societies of cultivators, from the Melanesian cultivators of tuberous plants to the cerealiculturalists of the Old World), and are connected with the harvest festivals (e.g., among the Fijians during the Nanga and Mbaki feast), with (spring) festivals of the growth of vegetation (e.g., in ancient China, in India during the Holī festival or during Dīvālī), and with planting or sowing (e.g., among the Pipil of Central America). Although it maintains its fundamental quality as a ritual disruption of order and as a temporal heightening of social and individual life rhythms, the sexual orgy of cultivators also reflects the solidarity between human sexuality and fecundity and the fertility of cultivated plants that constitutes one of the central beliefs of those societies; the orgy possesses the specific function of revitalizing the forces of vegetation. In this sense, it is a collective counterpart of the "hierogamy" (ritual intercourse or marriage between humans or symbolic figures to enhance vegetal reproduction and growth during critical moments of the agrarian year).

Just as all agricultural and horticultural labors have a ritual aspect or value, the festivals of cultivators, and the harvest festivals in particular, are an integral part of agricultural activities, and are organized as an aspect of the general economic activity of the social body. This is emblematically clear, to cite but one example, among the matrilinear maize cultivators of what is today New York State, the Iroquois of the Six Nations, whose agricultural economy has recently been reconstructed. Among the Iroquois, at harvesttime labor was distributed among three different groups of women. One group collected the maize ears in baskets, a second group transported the cereal produce to the storage places, where it was buried in underground pits, and a third group prepared the harvest festival. A part of the labor force employed in the harvesting was thus devoted to the preparation of the feast, in which the men also took part before leaving the village for long hunting expeditions in the forests.

The unity of productive and ritual activity, and of the seasonal-technical and the festive-ritual calendars, was thus complete in all archaic communities of cultivators. In medieval and modern times, especially in the wheat zone, this situation was increasingly modified by the development of the liturgical calendars of the great "universal" religions (notably Christianity and Islam), which were partly independent of the seasonal pattern of agriculture, and later of the "lay" festive calendars. In this area, however, a specifically agricultural perception of time continued to exist side by side with the official calendars, and interacted with them dialectically. The new religions either accepted and transformed or rejected and tried to abolish the traditional rituals and feasts. A good example of this complex situation is the traditional festive calendar of European peasants. This calendar is the result of a complex interaction of an archaic agricultural festive system and Christian liturgy.

Figures and Deities

The offerings cited above in connection with some agrarian festivals are examples of an extremely widespread typology of sacrificial offerings, ritual acts, and propitiatory prayers directed toward extrahuman entities of various kinds that are believed to embody, or to control, the outcome of the labors of cultivation and the abundance of the harvest. Such beings or entities can be classified into four main categories: (1) nonpersonified forces or (less correctly) "spirits" that are believed to be active in the very growth and nourishing properties of cultivated plants; (2) personified beings of different kinds, believed to embody, or to cause and control, the growth of specific cultivated plants or, more generally, the produce of cultivation; (3) polytheistic gods and goddesses who, within the context of the various pantheons, are believed to control certain aspects of the agricultural economy; (4) figures who, within "universal" and "founded" (often monotheistic) religions, are believed to influence aspects of the agricultural economy or the outcome of cultivation in a context in which the total control over reality (and thus also over agriculture) is often attributed to a single principle or deity.

The last two categories are most often historically derived from the second. The polytheistic deities, however, are more completely integrated within a unified religiosity, and constitute parts of a system of specialized extrahuman personalities. They may be officially in charge of cerealiculture (e.g., the ancient Greek goddess Demeter) or of such a specific aspect as the diseases of wheat and barley plants (e.g., the Roman deity Robigo), but in all cases they are tied to all the other deities of their specific pantheon by genealogical, mythological, and ritual bonds. The entities who preside over aspects of cultivation within "founded" religions may be secondary figures of the belief system of those religions (such as angels, saints, or in some Christian contexts, the Virgin Mary), or else figures who clearly belong to a noncanonical, folkloric religiosity and resemble strikingly the entities and figures of the first and second types in our typology. Both types, however, are marginal to the central body of belief, and their diffusion is limited, both geographically (to specific rural zones within the wide diffusion areas of the "great" religions) and socially (to the peasantry).

The existence of belief in the power of cultivated vegetation (our first category) is usually deduced from a series of ritual behaviors that has been interpreted as tending to act positively upon such a power. Such is the ritual treatment of the first or last sheaf of grain among European and other cerealiculturists. In some cases, the ritually important (first or last) sheaf of the harvest is avoided by the cultivators, in others, it is eagerly sought after. In some cases, it is taken to the farm or settlement with great ritual pomp; in other cases, it is thrown away. This ambivalence, according to Mircea Eliade, is a consequence of the ambivalent meaning of the chosen sheaf, which is both dangerous and precious because it symbolically contains or embodies the power of the harvested cereal. According to peasants of northern Europe (Finland, Estonia, Germany), the ritually chosen sheaf brings good luck and blessings to the household, protects from diseases and lightning, and keeps mice away from the harvested grain. The sheaf can be used for divination of the marriages of young women (Estonia) or of the price of grain in the following year (Germany); it has magical properties in relationship to childbirth (Finland), marriage (Scotland), and next season's harvest, so that some grain from the last sheaf of the harvest is mixed with the seeds used for the next sowing (Scandinavia and Germany). The "power" of the cultivated plants is similarly enhanced by other (e.g., hierogamic) rituals.

Only very rarely, however, are beliefs and ritual behaviors of this type not connected with some specific personification of the beings believed to embody or to control the seasonal outcome of cultivation. Indeed, though the existence of the first category of our typology is generally accepted by scholars, it would be possible to reformulate that category in favor of a widened scope of and differentiation within our second category.

In any case, the second category of our typology is extremely vast and varied and includes at least three main subcategories: (a) beings connected to, and representative of, specific cultivated plants, or the growth of cultivated vegetation in general; (b) earth-mother figures; (c) spirits of the dead or ancestors.

The first subtype is the most widespread and easily recognized. It is the nearest to the first category of our typology, and the extrahuman beings classified as belonging to this subtype are often represented by harvested plants (sometimes, the first or last or most beautiful plants of the harvest), often collected and tied together in the shape of a human (most often, a female) figure, kept until the next harvesting season, and ritually treated in various ways. Figures of this type are found on all continents. One may mention the Aztec maize goddess; the Maize Mother of pre-Columbian Peruvians, represented by a female image made with the biggest maize cobs of the harvest; the analogous Quinoa Mother, Coca Mother, and Potato Mother, all similarly represented by the same Peruvians; the various maize mothers, one for each type of maize, of the Pueblo Indians of the southwestern United States. The Karen of Burma invoke a personified "spirit of the rice"; the Minangkabau of Sumatra use special rice plants to represent the rice mother Indoea Padi; and rice mothers are known to the Tomori of Sulawesi and to the rice growers of the Malay Peninsula, who ritually treat the wife of the cultivator as a pregnant woman during the first three days after the storing of the rice. The agriculturalists of the Punjab fashioned a female figure from the most beautiful cotton plant of the harvest to represent the Cotton Mother. We have seen the ritual treatment and the magico-symbolic value of the last sheaf among the agriculturists of the wheat zone: the last sheaf, or a specially fashioned anthropomorphic image made of cereal stalks or straw, is identified in the same contexts as figures variously named Old Man (Denmark, Poland, Arabia Petraea), Queen of the Grain (Bulgaria), Old Woman (Germany, Scotland). The Berbers of Morocco used straw from the harvested fields to shape a female image they dressed in a woman's clothes that represented the Bride of the Barley.

Such figures, seemingly so similar, differ widely in their specific meanings and functions, as shown by the various roles they play in the ritual contexts. They may be believed to be entities responsible for growth of cultivated plants, and thus may be the recipients of offerings and prayers (Zara Mama, the maize mother of the Peruvians, for example, fashioned in the shape of a doll from cobs and dressed elegantly, was offered sacrifices and prayers). Or they may be believed to embody and to concentrate in themselves, rather than to control, that growth; in such cases they are ritually treated in various ways, the two most frequent and meaningful of which are the "death" pattern and the "wedding" pattern. The better known is the death pattern, which can be illustrated by the treatment of the last sheaf, identified as the Queen of Grain by the Bulgarians; the sheaf is dressed in a woman's clothes, carried around in a procession, and then burned and scattered in the fields or thrown into a body of water. Such rituals are usually interpreted as dramatizing the seasonal cycle of cultivated plants, and their periodic "death" followed by their return or "rebirth" before the next harvesting—a theory shaped in the nineteenth century by James G. Frazer and Wilhelm Mannhardt. The wedding pattern is exemplified by the "marriage" of two fistfuls of rice, collected before the harvesttime, practiced on the islands of Java, Bali, and Lombok; the two fistfuls were treated like a pair of spouses, a wedding ceremony between them was celebrated, and then they were brought to the storehouse and stored there so that the rice could grow. Another example is that of the Barley Bride of the Berbers of Morocco. Groups of women completed for the honor of carrying the straw figure processionally through the ripe crops; on other occasions, the male members of the community appeared on horseback to fight for her, thus imitating scenes that were normal for Berber weddings, including a simulated abduction of the bride. In other areas, the two patterns appear together: in Denmark the female harvester dances with an image formed with the last sheaves; she cries while she dances, and is considered a "widow" because she is married to a being who is going to die.

If considered together, the various ritual treatments of the mythical figures embodying or controlling the outcome of cultivation clearly form a complex, well-structured strategic system aimed at controlling the uncertainties of the specific modes of production. The death and the wedding patterns, in particular, deal with the critical economic moment represented by the harvesting. The death pattern ritually enacts, and thus controls, the very crisis represented by the final moment of the cycle, symbolically overcome through the destruction, and ritual reintegration (by throwing it in the water or by spreading it on the fields) of the first (or last or "best") part of the produce of cultivation, which represents the cultivated plant or its "mother," "queen," "spouse," and so on. The wedding pattern ritually enacts, and thus controls, the positive outcome of the efforts and risks of cultivation, and thus performs a symbolic fecundation of the cultivated plant—and not just any fecundation, but a cultural one, sanctioned by a marriage ritual, just as the fertilization of cultivated plants is felt to be a highly cultural phenomenon. The dramatic importance of the crisis ritually enacted and controlled by the death pattern is further clarified by the fact that the death and burial of the representative of cultivated plants is often a symbolic but sometimes a real animal, or even human, ritual killing.

While the belief in "mother" figures who represent or control the reproductive power of the cultivated plants is typical of cultivator societies, belief in an earth mother is not limited to those societies. Indeed, the personification of the earth as a fecund mother, based on the simple symbolic connection between female animal (human) fecundity and the fertility of the earth from which the plants grow, is not unknown to hunter-gatherer societies. On the other hand, most of the data interpreted as pointing toward that belief are derived from beliefs and cultic practices pertaining to polytheistic religions; the goddesses interpreted as earth figures are usually complex deities, whose connection with the fertile earth is only one aspect of their personalities. Nevertheless, the earth complex, often coupled with a cult of the sky or of a sky figure as a fertilizing father (dispenser of rain) and with the equation between fecund women and the cultivated earth, is present in many cultivators' religions and survives in specific rituals (e.g., in formulaic prayers such as the Anglo-Saxon invocation to Herce or the pseudo-Homeric hymn to Gaia, a polytheistic goddess whose name means "earth," and who was invoked as a dispenser of crops). Earth-mother beliefs are especially important in the "wheat zone," where they are more central in cosmogonic and anthropogenic myths than in direct connection with agriculture. The fact that in many cultivating societies, and possibly in the distant origins of cultivation, women were in charge of the domesticated plants enhanced the association between the female sphere and the cultivated earth. A variety of female figures, whose sexuality and fecundity are strongly stressed, are usually referred to the earth mother complex; they appear in the Old World from Neolithic times to later antiquity in the form of statuettes or in paintings and reliefs on pottery and elsewhere. The most ancient and important documents pertaining to such figures may be the recently discovered paintings on the walls of a ceremonial building in the early agricultural settlement of Çatal Hüyük; but the female figures depicted in those paintings and in roughly contemporary statuettes from Çatal Hüyük and Hacilar are never clearly associated with symbols pointing to agriculture, but rather with animals such as vultures, leopards, and bulls.

In examining some examples of seasonal calendars pertaining to cultivators, we have mentioned the connection between the dead and the products of cultivation. The most meaningful and widespread example of such a connection is the belief in the return of the dead during the harvest festival or great feast among Melanesian and Polynesian yam and taro growers. The hungry dead are believed to invade the territory of the living in that festive time and are offered part of the produce. Similar connections between fertility feasts of agriculturalists and the return of the dead are not unknown to other societies of cultivators (e.g., the Christmas festivities of the northern European peasants involve both the dead and a celebration of fertility and life).

The offering of first fruits, or of parts of the produce of cultivation, to the returning dead has been interpreted by Vittorio Lanternari as a response to the periodic crisis represented by the sudden abundance of food, and by the suspension of the labors of cultivation after the harvesting. The earth, sacrilegiously tilled or dug by the cultivators, is seen as the home of the dead, who belong to a sphere that, like the virgin earth that must be "treated" by the cultivators, is foreign and uncontrolled. By offering a part of the produce to the returning dead the cultivators react to and control the seasonal crisis and risk. The dead, moreover, return collectively, because the work of the cultivators is collective; they return annually, at the end of the agrarian cycle. They enter the village because during the year the village has invaded the earth, their domain, to modify it; they are menacingly hungry because, to satiate their own hunger, the living have attacked the earth and shall attack it again the following year.

Although this is probably a correct interpretation of the widespread belief in a collective and periodical return of the dead in crucial moments of the seasonal calendar of cultivators, other data point to different views of the relationship of the dead with the cultivated plants. In particular, the strong connection between funerary, agrarian, and sexual rituals shows that the dead are often seen as active forces in the positive outcome of the labors of cultivation. The Bambara of Mali, West Africa, for example, pour water over the head of the dead person and implore him or her to send them a good harvest; the Finnish cerealiculturalists mix bones or objects belonging to the dead with the seed during the sowing and return the objects to the graveyard after the harvest, whereas German peasants similarly use soil they have dug out from a tomb. The equation between the seed or tuber, buried in the ground, and the dead, whose memory continues in the life of their progeny, is probably the basic concept underlying these and similar cases. The structure of the ancient Chinese peasant house described by Marcel Granet, with the inner section containing the stored grain, and near it the marriage bed of the couple and the burial place of the family ancestors, is the best synthetic representation of such a conception.

Origin Myths

The beliefs discussed so far, which shape the ritual aspect of the activities of cultivators, are expressed just as clearly in the myths traditionally related to account for the origins of cultivated plants or of the various technical and economic activities of cultivators, as well as to validate their cultural systems.

Some myths stress the symbolic correspondence between the cultivated plants and human beings and between sexual fecundity and vegetal fertility, the similarity between the techniques of cultivation and those of childraising, and the "motherly" quality of the cultivated earth. Others give more attention to the (miraculous) origin of the cultivated plants or techniques of cultivation. Among these last myths, Adolf E. Jensen distinguished two main, widespread types, attributing to cultivators of tuberous plants the type of myth that connects cultivation and death, mostly by recounting the birth of the cultivated plants from the body of a slain primordial being (the Hainuwele type) and attributing to cerealiculturalists myths of the theft of the basic cultivated cereals by primeval humankind. Jensen called the latter the Prometheus type, using the name of the Greek mythic figure Prometheus, who stole elements of human culture from the gods. But this rigid distinction should be abandoned, not only because the origin of cereals is often connected to a mythic killing (echoes of this are to be found, e.g., in the Osirian mythology of the Egyptians) but also, or rather especially, because the central theme of both these types, that of the primeval guilt connected by origin myths to the beginnings of cultivation, can be shown to be more richly differentiated. This theme includes at least (1) the killing of the primeval figure (Hainuwele type); (2) the stealing of the original cultivated plant (Prometheus type); and (3) the spying upon, and thus the offending of, a primeval generous female figure to whom the first introduction of cultivated plants or food is attributed.

Two myths of the Kiwai of New Guinea are good examples of the first type we have mentioned; they stress the earth-mother and plant-child symbolism. One of these myths tells of a woman named Opae, who gave birth but, having no husband and no idea of what a baby was, abandoned the child. A bird took care of it and protected its body and arms with taro leaves; later the bird came back with some taro bark and a taro root, covered the baby's body with the bark, and tied the root to its head. The root penetrated the ground and started to grow, and the baby's body was transformed into the first cultivated taro plant. The other Kiwai myth recounts the origin of yam cultivation. A man who had no wife dug a hole in the ground and had intercourse with the earth. But under the earth a woman was hidden, Tshikaro by name. She became pregnant, and, as is done with women at childbirth, she was surrounded by an enclosure made of mats (the mythic prototype of the enclosures protecting the yam gardens of the Kiwai) and gave birth to many yam tubers.

The most famous myth that connects cultivation and death by recounting the origin of the cultivated plants from the body of a slain primordial being is the Hainuwele myth of the islanders of Ceram (Indonesia), studied by Adolf E. Jensen and used by him as a prototype of this category. Hainuwele, a young maid, was killed, her body was cut in pieces, and the pieces were buried; from the various parts of her body, the various cultivated plants were born. The killing of Hainuwele gave rise not just to the plants, but in different ways to sexuality, to death, and to many cultural institutions. Myths of this type are present in all continents. An American example is the Maya account of the origin of maize from the heart of the Maize Mother. An African one is the Nzima (Ghana) myth of the origin of that same plant. In the Nzima myth, two female figures appear: a mother, the ancestress responsible for the introduction of maize cultivation, and her daughter, sacrificed by the mother. An ancient Greek myth of cerealiculture also features a mother and her daughter. The goddess Demeter, angry because her young daughter Persephone has been abducted by the netherworld god, causes the vegetation (specifically, cereals) to wither and abandons the gods to travel among men. She is taken for an old woman and employed by a king and his wife as a nurse for their baby. Although she is spied upon and interrupted while trying to make the baby immortal by burning it, and then leaves the king's palace forever, condemning the baby to mortality, she teaches the king the Eleusinian mysteries. Finally, Persephone returns to the upper world, where she will periodically reside, and the vegetation is revived. In other versions, Demeter teaches the techniques of agriculture to a king who had helped her. This myth, in whatever version, sanctions mortality, agriculture, and the most famous of Greek mystery rites as fundamental and related aspects of known since primeval times human existence and presents a motherly figure as responsible for the origin of cultivation.

The correspondence between the female protagonists of myths of this kind and the second type of extrahuman entities described in the previous section is often explicit. However, as in the myth of the Cochiti Pueblo of New Mexico, the correspondence may be indirect. The Mother of the Indians, we are told, abandoned her children; when they sent messengers to her underground dwelling to ask for her help in a moment of crisis, she gave them the first maize "fetish" or doll, made of a maize plant adorned with feathers and buckskin strings, a prototype of the object used by the Cochiti in agrarian rituals. Clearly, the maize figure is a substitute for the Mother, and, as in the case of Demeter in the first version of her myth, it is ritual material connected with cultivation rather than cultivation itself that is given to humans by the disappearing female.

As for the theme (subtype 3) of the offended superhuman female, it is present in many myths of the "excretion" type. In a series of myths told by the Creek, Cherokee, and Natchez maize growers of the southeastern United States, the mythic woman, who sometimes appears in the shape of a maize plant or cob, gives maize (and sometimes beans) to humans. She takes care of orphans and other needy people, and for them she produces maize grains by rubbing her own body. The woman is murdered in some versions, and in others she offers herself in sacrifice; but in all versions of the myth, before dying, she instructs the people about the actions they must perform in order to let maize and beans spring forth from her body. Myths of this type are widespread. Two more examples will serve to indicate that the themes these myths have in common are not restricted to the "excretion" motif but include the motif typical of the third "subtype" of the classification given above.

In a myth of the Toraja of Sulawesi (Indonesia), a fisherman often left his wife to go on fishing expeditions; when he came back, he always found a large pot full of rice, but his wife would not tell him from whence it had come. One day, he spied on her through a fissure in the wall of their dwelling and saw that she rubbed her hands together over the pot and thus filled it with rice. Disgusted by this discovery, he reproached her for this unclean procedure; as a result of his reproaches the woman transformed herself into a rice plant, and he became a sago palm. The yam and taro growers of Melanesia and New Guinea have similar myths (in New Guinea, the myths are about Yam Woman, who miraculously produces yams from her own body), but a complex myth, very similar to the American and Indonesian myths, is to be found among the Maori of New Zealand and accounts for the origin of the kumara (sweet potato). The goddess Pani took care of two young orphaned nephews and nourished them with baked kumara; the two brothers, who loved this previously unknown food, kept asking where it came from, but Pani would not tell them. One day, one of the brothers spied on her and discovered that she drew the sweet potatoes from her own body while lying in the water. In another version, she obtained the kumara by rubbing her hands on her belly. The boy told his brother: "We are eating Pani's excretions." Ashamed, Pani retired to the netherworld, where one of the nephews magically reached her and found her cultivating kumara.

In America, Indonesia, and New Zealand a female figure is thus believed to have obtained the main cultivated plant from her own body and to have given it generously to the needy; it is further recounted that she was spied on while doing this, and that, ashamed or offended, she disappeared, having given rise to the cultivated plants and to the techiques of agriculture. The similarity between these myths and the ancient Greek myth about Demeter is striking, and points to connections between the origin myths of cerealiculturalists and those of other cultivators. The complexity of historical derivations and typological connections between the various origin myths can be illustrated by one last, paradoxical example. In mythical times, according to traditional Maya beliefs, the rain god hit with his lightning the rock in which the maize god was hidden, and the maize god was born, the answer to the prayers of primeval, needy mankind. The later, christianized culture of Guatemala and Yucatán, however, reinterpreted the ancient Maya maize god as a Christ-like, bread-of-life figure, thus introducing elements of the Hainuwele type into a traditional myth more similar to the Prometheus type.

As shown by many of these examples, the myths about the origin of cultivation point to crisis as well as to fertility. Many such myths present the cultivation of plants as an ambiguous, dangerous innovation, caused by a primeval mistake or sin. The attitude they reflect is similar to that expressed by the ritual "return of the dead" during crucial moments of the seasonal cycle. The costs and risks of cultivation are expressed mythically and ritually by societies whose well-being, contingent upon the outcome of cultivation, is perennially at stake, and must be continually reaffirmed both by technical and by ritual and ideological means. By relegating the nonagrarian life to a distant past, and by showing the positive consequences of the "sacrilegious" invading of uncontrolled nature by human endeavor, the founding myths of cultivators reinforce the cultural and economic systems that express them and protect the social body against a recurrent series of cyclical crises.

Religious and Social Values of Cultivators

In many origin myths the female responsible for the beginning of cultivation acted in favor of helpless or derelict children who did not belong to a system of family solidarity (e.g., orphans), or she is presented as a generous nourisher. This mythic trait corresponds well to the importance of hospitality among cultivators and to the periodic redistribution of the produce of cultivation on festive occasions that reach their peak in the alimentary orgy and in the offerings of first fruits to the returning dead on ritual occasions. The foundation of all these conceptions, beliefs, and behaviors is the economic life that cultivation makes possible, a stable way of life in which the relative abundance of food makes further economic and cultural changes possible, makes the redistribution of the yearly produce among the members of the community a vital task, and provides a surplus for ritual and even orgiastic consumption on given seasonal occasions.

A relatively egalitarian ideology of collective labor, festive consumption, generalized redistribution, and hospitable generosity is typical of the less complex societies of cultivators. It is replaced by an ideology of vertical concentration and redistribution in societies in which production, distribution, and consumption of agrarian produce become more complex, tasks and roles become more differentiated, and a privileged status is assumed by a group or a person, chief, or king. The cooperation and solidarity necessary to obtain and share a good harvest are identified with the ability of the rulers to organize, to judge, and to distribute the yearly produce. Harvest festivals, as happen in Africa in the Swazi kingdom, may become the occasion for ritual dramas of rebellion and reproach, enhancing and upholding the "rights" of the subjects and stressing the "duties" of the rulers. On the other hand, in societies such as these the sanctity of the (private) property of the land, and of its symbol, the boundary stone, is upheld by religious beliefs and sactions; the other face of kingly generosity, the periodic tribute of a part of the agrarian produce to the rulers, is also upheld by sacred sanctions.

Just as the importance of social solidarity for the very survival of agrarian communities is stressed by beliefs and rites based upon redistribution and consumption, other aspects of the ethos of cultivators are expressed by other religious complexes. Despite the importance of sexual license and festive license of various types in the religiosity of cultivators, the belief that the respect of social and religious rules and prohibitions, of ritual purity, and of sexual purity in particular is essential for the good functioning of cultivation is a worldwide feature. The ritual purity of the peasants of modern northern Europe is obtained by a bath and the donning of new or clean clothes before the main agricultural labors, such as plowing or sowing or reaping. The importance of virgins, old men and women, and even eunuchs in rituals and cults either directly agrarian (such as the ancient Egyptian rites performed by castrated men to ensure the yearly Nile inundation and the fertility of the fields) or linked to mother goddesses is an extreme aspect of this symbolic complex. In many hierarchical societies, the chief or king must live in a perpetual state of ritual purity. This purity is believed to have a direct influence upon the agrarian produce and is upheld by a complex series of norms and taboos.

The correct distribution of the yearly produce of cultivation and the correct functioning of ritual and social norms are thus no less important in the religious life of cultivators than sexual symbolism or the belief that extrahuman entities control or embody the growth of cultivated plants. Of equal importance is the religious aura surrounding the specific technical aspects of agrarian production; the sanctity of animals such as the plow ox in ancient Greece or of objects such as the plow among early modern Italian peasants and the agriculturists of Madagascar today are good examples. What is most meaningful, however, is the widespread sacrality of the general complex of technical knowledge and ritual lore necessary to cultivation.

Technical knowledge and ritual lore are often believed to have been learned from extrahuman beings in mythic times. Moreover, the acquiring of that knowledge is often connected with a primeval mistake or sin and is tied to the origins of the main cultural traits of the society that are expressed in myth, as well as to the beginnings of human mortality. The fact that the Eleusinian mysteries are mythically founded by a narrative tradition that also recounts the divine origin of agriculture may point to an intrinsic connection between the technical-ritual knowledge necessary for cultivation and the ritual and symbolic knowledge about the religious value of human life that was the object of what we call "mystery" cults. This point aside, the agrarian connections of the ancient mystery cults are beyond doubt, as are the connections between the eschatological and soteriological expectations the mystery cults express and the agriculturist's awareness of the perennial repetition of the agrarian cycle of the "death" and "rebirth" of plants.

Bibliography

A useful treatment of agriculture and cultivation throughout the world, with special attention to primitive societies, is Vinigi Grottaneli's Etnologica: L'uomo e la civita, vol. 2, Le opere dell'uomo (Milan, 1965); see pages 573–754. On the origin of agriculture in the Neolithic period, see Sonia Cole's The Neolithic Revolution, 5th ed. (London, 1970), and other studies quoted by Grottanelli and by Mircea Eliade in A History of Religious Ideas, vol. 1, From the Stone Age to the Eleusinian Mysteries (Chicago, 1978), chapter 1. On Neolithic religion, the most ambitious study is the volume on eastern European Neolithic religions by Marija Gimbutas, The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe, 6500–3500 B.C., 2d rev. ed. (Berkeley, 1982). The main works on the religiosity and cults of agriculturalists, which shaped the field for many decades, are Wilhelm Mannhardt's Wald- und Feldkulte, 2 vols. (1875–1877; reprint, Darmstadt, 1963), his Mythologische Forschungen aus dem Nachlasse (Strassburg, 1884), and James G. Frazer's The Golden Bough, 3d ed., rev. and enl., 12 vols. (London, 1911–1915). Within Frazer's huge work the books treating myths and rituals of agriculture more specifically are Adonis, Attis, Osiris, 2 vols. (London, 1914), and Spirits of the Corn and of the Wild, 2 vols. (London, 1912).

Other important, later contributions on agrarian rituals and beliefs, which approach the agricultural material from the viewpoint of theories based primarily on the study of cerealiculturalist peasants, include Aukusti V. Rantasalo's Der Ackerbau in Volksaberglauben der Finnen und Esten mit entsprechenden Gebrauchen der Germanen vergleichen, 5 vols. (Helsinki, 1919–1925), and Johann Jakob Meyer's Trilogie altindischer Mächte und Feste der Vegetation, 3 vols. (Zurich and Leipzig, 1937). Vladimir I. Propp's Russkie agrarnje prazdniki (Leningrad, 1963), an interesting study of Russian agrarian festivals, follows Frazer with some modifications. An Italian translation is available: Feste agrarie russe (Bari, 1978). An important criticism of the views of Mannhardt and Frazer is C. W. von Sydow's "The Mannhardtian Theories about the Last Sheaf and the Fertility Demons from a Modern Critical Point of View," Folklore 45 (1934): 291–309, reprinted in C. W. von Sydow's Selected Papers on Folklore (Copenhagen, 1948). The most important recent contribution on "agrarian" religions is Mircea Eliade's A History of Religious Ideas, vol. 1 (cited above), where the central ideas expressed in his Patterns in Comparative Religion (New York, 1958), chaps. 7–9, are developed and at times modified.

Good studies of the religiosity of cultivators outside the "wheat zone" are Marcel Granet's Festivals and Songs of Ancient China (1919; New York, 1932) and Bronislaw Malinowski's Coral Gardens and Their Magic, 2 vols. (London, 1935). The ethnographical bibliography on the religiosity of primitive cultivators is huge; a most important study of the subject is the book by Vittorio Lanternari, "La Grande Festa": Vita rituale e sistemi di produzione nelle società tradizionali, 2d ed. (Bari, 1976). On the beliefs and rituals of cultivators, Angelo Brelich's Introduzione alla storia delle religioni (Rome, 1966) is also useful.

On earth-mother figures, see Albrecht Dieterich's Mutter Erde, 3d ed. (Leipzig, 1925), and the criticism by Olof Pettersson, Mother Earth: An Analysis of the Mother Earth Concepts According to Albert Dieterich (Lund, 1967). On the earth-mother figurines, see Peter J. Ucko's study Anthropomorphic Figurines of Predynastic Egypt and Neolithic Crete (London, 1968).

The following sources treat the origin myths: Adolf E. Jensen's Das religiöse Welbild einer frühen Kultur, 2d ed. (Stuttgart, 1949); Carl A. Schmitz's "Die Problematik der mytho-logeme 'Hainuwele' und 'Prometheus,'" Anthropos 55 (1960): 215–238; Atsuhiko Yoshida's "Les excrétions de la Déesse et l'origine de l'agriculture," Annales: Économies, sociétés, civilisations 21 (July-August 1966): 717–728; and Gudmund Hatt's "The Corn Mother in America and in Indonesia," Anthropos 46 (1951): 853–914.

New Sources

Baudy, Dorothea. Römische Umgangsriten. Berlin-New York, 1998. Interpretation of Roman agrarian rituals in ethnological perspective.

Baudy, Gerhard. Adonisgärten. Studien zur antiken Samensymbolik. Frankfurt am Main, 1986. The gardens of Adonis interpreted in the frame of agrarian rituality.

Baudy, Gerhard. "Cereal Diet and the Origins of man. Myths of the Eleusinia in the Context of Ancient Mediterranean Harvest-Festivals." In Food in Antiquity, edited by John Wilkins. Exeter, U.K., 1995, pp. 177–195.

Bausinger, Hermann. Volkskultur in der technischen Welt. Stuttgart, 1961, 2d edition, Frankfurt am Main, 1986. Criticism of agrarian interpretations in German folklore.

Massenzio, "Vegetationskult." In Handbuch religionswissenschaftlicher Grundbegriffe, vol. 5, edited by H. Cancik, B. Gladigow and K.-H. Kohl. Stuttgart, 2001. A recent synthesis on vegetation and fertility issues in comparative religious studies, though very parochial in its perspective since the discussion is based on a selection of Italian literature.

Müller, Klaus E. Die bessere und die schlechtere Hälfte. Ethnologie des Geschlechterkonflikts. Frankfurt-New York, 1984. Gender roles and gender conflict in agrarian primal cultures.

Müller, Klaus E. "Grundzüge der agrarischen lebens- und Weltanschauung." Paideuma 19–20 (1973–1974): 54–124. The most complete and updated treatment of the relationship between religion and agriculture in a cross-cultural perspective based on a culture-historical approach.

Sabbatucci, Mistica agraria e demistificazione. Rome, 1986. Agrarian mysticism demystified in post-modern vein.

Schlatter, Gerhard. "Agrarische Riten." In Handbuch religionswissenschaftlicher Grundbegriffe, vol. 2, edited by H. Cancik, B. Gladigow and M. Laubscher, pp. 417–419. Stuttgart, 1988.

Weber-Kellermann. Erntebrauch in der ländlichen Arbeitswelt des 19. Jahrhunderts auf Grund der Mannhardtbefragung in Deutschland von 1865. Marburg am Lahn, Germany, 1965. A reappraisal of Mannhardt's vegetation theory.

Cristiano Grottanelli (1987)

Revised Bibliography

Encyclopedia of Religion Grottanelli, Cristiano

Agriculture

views updated May 29 2018

AGRICULTURE

in the land of israel
    In Prehistory
    From the Beginning of the Bronze Age to the Conquest of Joshua
    Early Israelite
    The Period of the First Temple
    The Period of the Return and the Second Temple
    The Hasmonean Period
    The Mishnaic and Talmudic Period
    The Byzantine-Muslim Period
in babylon
    Livestock
in the middle ages
    Ideals
    History
        trade in agricultural products: middle ages and modern times
in modern europe
    Ukraine
    Belorussia
    Poland
    Romania
in the united states
in canada
in latin america

AGRICULTURE. This entry is arranged according to the following outline:

in the land of israel

The study of the history of ancient agriculture in the Land of Israel has been the focus of a great amount of research in recent decades. Much more data is now available as a result of an intensification of data-collection and the use of new methodologies during archaeological excavations and surveys, especially in regard to the development of rural settlements (villages, hamlets and farms) and their landscapes (fields, terraces, access routes to markets), and the technology of agricultural implements (digging tools, ground stone objects) and installations (wine and oil presses). The intensive gathering of plant and wood remains at sites using flotation procedures has helped to enlarge knowledge about the variety of cultivations and fruits trees available during different archaeological periods. Botanical remains are frequently found on the floors of houses and storage buildings, on the surfaces of courtyards, in fire-pits and in silos. Inventories of crops are thus produced and this helps towards a reconstruction of agrarian practices and dietary patterns. Further insights into the history of agriculture have also emerged as a result of inter-disciplinary work with geomorphologists, agronomists, and botanists. The analysis of Phytoliths – fossilized mineral particles produced biogenetically within plants – under microscope, has been found to be useful in the study of cultivated cereals. Palynological studies have also contributed to the investigation of landscape changes and the overall effect humans have on their environment, though usually only on a regional scale. Pollen studies are less helpful in elucidating changes on a micro-environmental level. Pollen cores have hitherto been taken from the Dead Sea and from the Sea of Galilee.

For a survey of agricultural methods and the conclusions of recent archaeological research, see preceding entry.

[Shimon Gibson (2^nd ed.)]

In Prehistory

Some archaeologists date the beginnings of agriculture in Palestine to the Mesolithic period, when the Natufian culture made its appearance with its bone and flint artifacts, some of which have survived to the present day. In the Kabara caves on Mt. Carmel, a flint sickle with its handle shaped to represent a fawn's head has been found. To that same period belong the sickles, mortars, and pestles which have been discovered in other localities in Palestine. According to these scholars, all these artifacts indicate the cultivation of cereals. According to others, however, these utensils were used merely to reap and mill wild grain. Archaeological finds testifying to soil cultivation and cattle raising become more numerous in the Neolithic Age, the period of caves and huts, agricultural implements, and cleaving tools. All these are evidence of settled communities which produced and stored food. To this period, likewise, belong excavated, prehistoric locations such as the Abu Uzbah cave on Mt. Carmel, the Neolithic cave near Sha'ar ha-Golan in the Jordan Valley and the lower strata of Jericho. In the Chalcolithic period, the transition between the Neolithic and the Bronze Age (4000 b.c.e.), agricultural settlements in the valleys, especially in the proximity of water sources, increased. Settlements were established in the plains of Moab (N.E. of the Dead Sea) where the Telleilat el-Asul (Ghassul) were found – mounds covering simple buildings, grain storages, agricultural implements, and artisans' tools made of calcareous or flint stone. By the later Chalcolithic period copper vessels like those found in Tel Abu-Matar near Beersheba appeared. In this area and at nearby Khirbet al-Bitar, excavations have unearthed ricewheat (Triticum dicoccum), einkorn (Triticum monococcum), two-rowed barley (Hordeum distichum), and lentils (Lens esculenta Moench). Elsewhere, olive and date kernels, grape seeds, and pomegranate rinds have been discovered.

From the Beginning of the Bronze Age to the Conquest of Joshua

This period includes the early (3000 b.c.e.), middle (until 1550 b.c.e.), and part of the late Bronze Age. The earliest literary evidence of local agricultural activity is provided by an inscription on the grave of the Egyptian officer Weni, who conducted a military expedition in Palestine during the reign of Pepi i (beginning of 24^th century b.c.e.) "The army returned in peace after smiting the country of the sand dwellers [the inhabitants of the coastal plain]… after he had cut down its figs and vines." At that time the King's Highway running along the coastal plain and through the Jezreel and Jordan valleys became increasingly important, and many settlements were established along its length. Settlements were also founded in the south of the Judean mountains, for example at Tell Beit-Mirsim, apparently the biblical Debir. The Sanehat Scroll (20^th century b.c.e.) described the travels in Palestine of this Egyptian officer and the document proves that, in the southern regions of the country, there were settlements which supported themselves by farming and cattle raising. Evidence of many settlements during the 18^th century b.c.e. is furnished by the Egyptian "Execration Texts." During the Hyksos occupation, the Habiru, apparently the Hebrew tribes of the patriarchal era, are first mentioned. They were nomads who did not establish any permanent settlements. Some occupied the marginal grasslands and occasionally sowed there. Thus Isaac planted in the Naḥal Gerar region "in that year," and, as a result of plentiful rain fall, reaped a "hundredfold" harvest (Gen. 26:12). Other scriptural references suggest that the land was closely settled and highly valued at this time. Abraham's and Lot's shepherds quarreled with each other while the "Canaanite and Perizzite dwelt then in the land" (Gen. 13:7). For a burial plot he wanted to purchase, Abraham had to pay Ephron, the Hittite, the full price (ibid., ch. 23), and Jacob similarly had to pay a large sum for the section of the field in Shechem where he pitched his tents (ibid., 33:19). The depiction at the Temple of Amon of Thutmose's expeditions in Palestine (c. 1478 b.c.e.) and his famous victory at Megiddo includes reliefs of the plants he brought from Palestine (the Karnak "Botanical Garden"). An inscription states that "the amount of harvest brought… from the Maket [plain of Jezreel] was 280,000 heqt of corn [150,000 bushels] beside what was reaped and taken by the king's soldiers."

Early Israelite

In contrast to scriptural references, external evidence on the state of local agriculture just before and after the Israelite conquest is rather meager. Yet from all sources, the incontrovertible fact emerges that no radical climatic changes occurred. Huntington's theory of the country becoming increasingly arid from the biblical time until today must, therefore, be rejected. It is not supported by any examination of the sources or archaeological discovery. These indicate that the areas sown and planted then coincide with the regions watered by rain or irrigation today. An intensively farmed, settled area existed in the irrigated regions of the Jordan Valley and another along the Mediterranean coast (where the annual precipitation exceeds 300 mm.), but there were no stable agricultural settlements in the northern Negev. The land there was cultivated once in several years, when plentiful rainfall would yield abundant harvests. The southern Negev and Arabah were waste, except for desert oases and irrigation projects where waters flowing down from the mountains were collected in dams. Such projects were limited during the kingdom, but increased in the Nabatean era (see below). The condition of afforestation was no different then than at the beginning of Jewish colonization in modern times. Forest and woods spread over the hill and rocky regions which were difficult to cultivate and in areas where the lack of security made soil cultivation and the erection of agricultural installations too hazardous. The "vines and figs" of the regions bordering the routes of the traversing armies were pillaged. This explains the presence of woods in the Naḥal Iron (Wadi ʿArah) district mentioned in the expedition of Thutmose iii (and later the "large forest" on the Sharon Plain mentioned by Strabo). Broad forests also extended along the north and northeast boundaries of the country – in Gilead, Bashan, and the Lebanon. There, in the vegetation along the Jordan and in the deserts, lurked wild beasts (see Fauna of *Israel). During the intervals when the land lay desolate, animals would invade the ruins where forests had begun to grow. Several times the scriptural warning against the danger of a too rapid military conquest had been issued "thou mayest not consume them too quickly, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee" (Deut. 7:22; Ex. 23:29; Num. 26:12). Having wandered in the desert for many years, the children of Israel were unfamiliar with local conditions and could hardly have been expected to succeed in mastering the intensive farming which obtained, for the most part, in the newly conquered territory. Furthermore, the neglect caused by wars and conquest had temporarily devastated large farming tracts, and these had been overrun by natural forests – a condition later recalled in Isaiah 18:9. Scrub and woods became widespread, and farmland degenerated into pasture (cf. ibid., 7:28).

During the transition period, the children of Israel, presumably, were primarily engaged in tending flocks, as in patriarchal days. The Song of Deborah yields no trace of extensive occupation with agriculture, even though the soil was tilled. The tribe of Reuben is described as living "among the sheep-folds, to hear the pipings of the flocks" (Judg. 5:16). Scripture also testifies to the existence of broad grazing lands in Gilead, and Bashan in Transjordan, the areas settled by the tribes of Reuben and Gad and half the tribe of Manasseh, all of whom owned much livestock (Num. 32; Deut. 3:19; Josh. 1:14). Although the Bible does portray the land of Canaan as "flowing with milk and honey" (date syrup), no conclusions can be drawn from this expression as to the relative importance of grazing land ("milk") as opposed to soil cultivation ("honey"). Livestock was raised to a limited extent in the border grassland regions and deserts, or was fed on the stubble of the grain fields and the stalks of the vegetable gardens. During the period of the conquest, sheep and cattle were also grazed in the forests which had covered the farm lands. The talmudic sages undoubtedly relied on an ancient tradition when they included, among the ordinances enacted by *Joshua, one permitting the grazing of flocks in the wooded areas (bk 81a).

The agricultural prosperity of Israel, however, is determined by the rainfall. This fact is emphasized already in the Bible which praises the country as a land that "drinketh water as the rain of heaven cometh down" (Deut. 11:10–11), in contrast to Egypt which was irrigated. This blessing, however, also entails the danger, repeated several times in the Bible and rabbinical literature, that, on account of sin, rainfall could be withheld, with drought and famine resulting. Although the country is described as "a land of brooks of water, of fountains and depths springing forth in valleys and hills" (ibid., 8:7), there is no evidence that in ancient times there were more than the hundreds of small springs and the few moderate and large fountains which now exist. Scripture praises the plain of the Jordan as "well watered," and so it is, even today (Gen. 14:10).

Either through experience or by borrowing the agricultural skills of the indigenous population, the Israelites gradually mastered the cultivation of the soil. The Talmud describes their predecessors as "well versed in the cultivation of the land," saying, "Fill this amount with olives; fill this amount with vines," and interprets their names accordingly: "Hori they that smelled the earth; Hivi they that tasted the earth like a serpent" (Shab. 85a). Even the spies admitted that Israel was a land "flowing with milk and honey and this is its fruit" (Num. 13). The Pentateuch states that the conquerors would enter a land with a highly developed agriculture, fertile soil, and established agricultural installations (Deut. 6:11). Special reference is made to hill cultivation where terraced fields were planted with vines and fruit trees and contained water cisterns, oil and wine presses, and tanks. Since the Canaanites had not yet been ousted from the fertile valleys, the wheat fields were not available to the Israelites (Judg. 1:19, 27–36).

Hill cultivation is intensive by nature; land holdings are small, and knowledge and experience are needed for such farming to yield a livelihood. These conditions apparently explain why the descendants of Joseph (Ephraim and half the tribe of Manasseh) complained to Joshua that the mountain of Ephraim was too small to maintain them. Joshua advised them to go to the forests of Gilead and Bashan (the land of the Perizzites and Rephaim), fell the trees, and settle there; upon the assumption that in securing the dominating heights, they would succeed in dislodging the Canaanites from the valleys (Josh. 17:14–18). Clearing the forests was by no means easy, and was not yet completed in the reign of David, for this region included the "Forest of Ephraim" where the armies of David and Absalom fought each other (ii Sam. 18:6–8). The Israelites did gradually succeed not only in mastering agricultural skills but also in organizing permanent town and village settlements. The nomads, enemies of the Israelites from the desert period, now envied the successful Israelite colonization. Together with their flocks, they raided Israelite territory and plundered the fields. Between each wave, the Israelites harvested their fields in haste and stored the produce in hidden receptacles (Judg. 6:2). Rather than use an exposed threshing floor, Gideon was forced to thresh his harvested wheat in a barn where fleeces were dried (ibid., 6:37–40). He was a well-to-do farmer, owning cattle and sheep, vines, and wheat fields. The ordinary Israelite farmer, however, seems to have been poor. His main diet consisted of barley, and consequently the children of Israel were contemptuously represented in the Midianite soldier's dream as a "cake of barley bread" baked on coals (ibid., 7:13).

The state of agriculture at this time may be deduced from the laws of land inheritance in the Pentateuch, and the descriptions of the settlement of the tribes, the divisions of parcels of land among the various families, and the procedure of redeeming estates recounted in the Book of Ruth. These sources reveal Hebrew agriculture as based on the small single family holding. It depicts an idyllic prosperous village life, although workers were only hired at harvest time, and even the wealthy Boaz personally supervised the stacking of the grain after the winnowing. In the course of time, however, a poor, landless class arose – as Scripture itself had foreseen: "the poor shall never cease out of the land" (Deut. 25:11). The unfortunates were the recipients of the gifts to the poor: the gleanings, the forgotten sheaves, the corners of the fields, the poor tithe. To the priests and levites, the heave offerings and tithes were given. The Book of Ruth reflects this, as well as the redeeming of fields to insure the continuity of family ties with the land. This almost sacred bond tying the Hebrew farmer to his inherited land was characteristic of Israel agriculture in every period. Here, too, is a reason for the speedy recovery of the local agriculture after every period of desolation. It should also be noted that the Israelite farmer always maintained a distinctly high cultural level. This fact is attested to by the "*Gezer Calendar", which gives a succinct but comprehensive account of the annual cycle of seasonal agricultural occupations. If the conjecture is correct that this calendar was a lesson transcribed by a boy, it is evidence that formal instruction in agriculture was imparted during the period of the Judges. The Hebrews also acquired agricultural techniques from their neighbors, as may be deduced from Shamgar the son of Anath's smiting the Philistines with an ox goad (Judg. 3:31) – not the primitive implement made entirely of wood, but one with a metal nail knocked through one end, and a metal spade attached to the other. In later sources, the dorban (also an ox goad) is mentioned as one of the few metal implements the Hebrews were allowed to take to the Philistines to be repaired and sharpened, metal work being prohibited to the Israelites lest they fashion arms to war upon their Philistine overlords (i Sam. 13:19–22). It appears that the children of Israel adopted agricultural skills and the use of the new types of implements brought by the Philistines who invaded the country in the 13^th century from the Aegean islands, and who settled in the southern coastal region and the lowlands of Judah. Their main gainful occupation was farming. Although they were the enemies of the Hebrews, they nevertheless refrained from attacking the farms on the hills and in the valleys. A period of agricultural stability ensued. This period provides the background for the Book of Ruth.

The Period of the First Temple

Israelite agriculture was based, as has been shown, on the autarchic family farm. With the rise of the monarchy, this order was threatened with collapse. Samuel warned the assembled people: "He (the king) will take your fields and your vineyards, and your olive yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants" (i Sam. 8–14), but it is doubtful if the prediction came true. Although David owned royal estates over which he appointed officials (i Chron. 27:26–29), they were apparently conquered and annexed territories, or else previously unworked areas which were developed by royal initiative. In the days of Solomon, boundaries were extended, and officials "who provided victuals for the king and his household" (i Kings 4:7) administered the royal estates. Agriculture prospered, and the memory of that condition was perpetuated in Scripture: "Judah and Israel dwelt safely, every man under his vine and fig tree from Dan to Beer-Sheba…" (ibid., 5:5). Uzziah, king of Judah, is called "lover of husbandry," and was noted for owning fields and vineyards, and for building "towers in the wilderness and hewing out many cisterns" (ii Chron. 26:10). Evidence corroborating this statement has been found in recent times through the excavation in the Negev hill region of an agricultural settlement, irrigated by an accumulation of rain water flowing down from the mountains. Settlements of this type were, apparently, guard posts and supply stations along the Negev caravan routes. In those days agriculture and agronomy reached their peak and were described by Isaiah as wisdom emanating from God, Who had taught the sons of man excellent methods of plowing and reaping (Isa. 28:23–29). It is noteworthy that these verses mention threshing implements which appeared only many generations later in Egypt and Rome. After the death of Uzziah security deteriorated and a decline set in among the Hebrew settlements in the lowlands. Against this background, Isaiah prophesied better days to come, when settlements would extend through the lowlands, when the farmer would sow his irrigated fields near the springs, and the shepherd tend his flocks without interference (ibid., 32:19–20).

The story of Naboth's vineyard, which was coveted by King Ahab, who wished to convert it into a vegetable garden, reflects agricultural conditions in the Northern Kingdom. Whereas the Jewish king respected the sanctity of a paternal inheritance to an Israel farmer, Queen Jezebel, a Sidonian princess, could not appreciate it (i Kings 21). With the passage of time, apparently, the poor and its widows and orphans were, in increasing numbers, likewise evicted from their holdings, and the prophet denounced those "who join house to house, that lay field to field" (Isa. 5:68). Nevertheless, in the main, the right of inheritance to patriarchal estates was upheld. When Jerusalem was actually under siege, Jeremiah, exercising his right of redemption, bought a plot of land (32:7–12). The remarkable agricultural prosperity of the land of Israel during the First Temple period is indicated in Ezekiel 27:17, which lists the exports of Judah and Israel to the market of Tyre as wheat of Minnith (probably a place in Transjordan), "pannag" (which cannot be clearly identified), honey, oil, and balm. With the destruction of the Kingdom of Israel at the end of the eighth century b.c.e. Samaria was denuded of its Israelite population, and repopulated by the nations the King of Assyria transported from other districts of his empire. The new inhabitants – later called Samaritans and in the Talmud, "Kutim" – failed to farm their land properly. Perhaps the lions that attacked them (ii Kings 17:25–27) had found a lair in the forests which encroached on neglected farms. There is no further information on conditions in Galilee. Some Israelites must have remained, since Hezekiah communicated with them (ii Chron. 30), and Josiah extended his domain over them (ibid., 34:6). A few biblical passages point to persisting desolation, and a prophecy predicted the restoration of cultivation in Samaria (Jer. 31:5).

The Period of the Return and the Second Temple

Having destroyed the Temple, Nebuzaradan left "the poorest of the land to be vinedressers and husbandmen" (ii Kings 25:12), apparently tenant farmers or hired workers of the royal estates. He may also have left behind those familiar with local methods in order to prevent the further deterioration of the farms by unskilled and inexperienced labor. The impoverished Jews and the foreigners who settled in abandoned Jewish territory could not, however, maintain the terraced hill farms and orchards. When the exiles returned, they found the land forsaken and desolate. They proceeded to repair the terraces, to restore the agricultural installations and to plant vines and fruit trees. Yet, due to their ignorance of how to exploit the rain water for hill cultivation, they failed to establish viable farms. Somewhat later, conditions improved. Farming prospered, and the prophet Malachi regarded the changed situation as a manifestation of God's love for His people. Desolate Edom is contrasted with prospering Judah (1:2–3). From the books of Ezra and Nehemiah it appears, however, that this optimism was premature, particularly in view of the ensuing moral degeneration. Poor farmers were evicted from their lands by the rich, and a new landowning class emerged. The new conditions loosened the bonds of devotion tying the farmer to his patrimony, and Jewish agriculture suffered. Now the foreigners, who had been forced to restore the lands seized from the Israelites, began to raise their heads. They obtained employment from the new owners and were often able to buy back the lands they had forfeited. Fields, vineyards, and orchards were neglected, and the woods again spread. From these trees, the Jews were enjoined to cut branches and build tabernacles (Neh. 8:15). As a result of the social and agrarian reforms instituted by Ezra and Nehemiah the Jewish population became more securely settled. Although a significant portion of the land still belonged to the king of Persia, the Jewish settlement broke through its boundaries by extending northward toward Galilee. The meager historical source material for the period includes the Book of Judith, assigned to the early fourth century (the period of Artaxerxes ii, 404–359 b.c.e.). The setting of the hook is the hills overlooking Jezreel, and the Jewish settlements mentioned as existing in the vicinity (Judith 7:3–13) apparently formed the link between the inhabited areas of Judea and the colonies that flourished in Galilee in later generations.

The level of Jewish agriculture in the Hellenistic period is not altogether clear. The author of the Letter of*Aristeas (pars. 112–118: early third century b.c.e.) praised the agricultural productivity of the country and the great "diligence of its farmers. The country is plentifully wooded with numerous olive trees and rich in cereals and vegetables and also in vines and honey. Date palms and other fruit trees are beyond reckoning among them." He apparently exaggerated the extent of the irrigated areas and the importance of the Jordan River as a water source. He similarly referred to large parcels of land – "each a holder of one hundred auroura lots" – about 275,000 square meters. Perhaps he wanted to draw an analogy between the Nile and the Jordan, comparing the small lots of Judah with the large holdings of Egypt. Had Ereẓ Israel been as densely populated as he claimed, the landholding of each family must have been much smaller than he estimated. His assertion might, however, indicate the growth of the landowning class on the one hand and a landless class on the other, conditions that arose soon after the return of the Babylonian exiles. The book of Ben Sira stresses such a contrast between the classes. In the *Zeno papyri (259 b.c.e.), Syria and Palestine are described as exporters of agricultural produce: grain, oil, and wine.

The Hasmonean Period

A period of further consolidation and expansion of Jewish settlement. The Hasmonean revolt relied mainly on the farmers, who received their just reward once the war had been won when many Gentile holdings fell into their hands. The farmers adhered closely to the Torah, especially to the precepts pertaining to the land, such as the year of release. Josephus relates (Wars, 1:54–66) that John Hyrcanus was forced to raise his siege of Ptolemy's stronghold because of the scarcity of food occasioned by the sabbatical year. During the reign of Alexander Yannai the Hasmonean kingdom reached the peak of its expansion, Jewish colonization of Galilee increased, and it became the largest center of Jewish population outside of Judea.

The Mishnaic and Talmudic Period

Began a generation before the destruction of the Temple and ends at the time of the division of the Roman empire. Josephus describes an abundance and fertility in the land at the end of the Second Temple period. He lavishes praise on Galilee in particular where "the land is so rich in soil and pasturage and produces such a variety of trees, that even the most indolent are tempted by these facilities to devote themselves to agriculture. In fact every inch of soil has been cultivated by the inhabitants; there is not a parcel of wasteland. The towns, too, are thickly distributed and even the villages, thanks to the fertility of the soil, are all so densely populated that the smallest of them contains above fifteen thousand inhabitants" (Jos., Wars, 3:42–43). The last number is an obvious exaggeration, especially in view of the number of villages in Galilee, which he elsewhere puts at 204 (Jos., Life, 235). He also describes Samaria and Judea: "Both regions consist of hills and plains, yield a light and fertile soil for agriculture, are well wooded, and abound in fruits, both wild and cultivated… But the surest testimony to the virtues and thriving conditions of the two countries is that both have a dense population"; but he is less enthusiastic about Transjordan which "is for the most part desert and rugged and too wild to bring tender fruits to maturity." Yet, he continues, even there, there were "tracts of finer soil which are productive of every species of crop, country watered by torrents descending from mountains and springs" (Wars 3:44–50). He praises the valley of Gennasereth where "there is not a plant which its fertile soil refuses to produce" – both those "which delight in the most wintry climate" and those which "thrive on heat," and concludes that "Nature had taken pride in this assembly, by a tour de force of the most discordant species in a single spot" (ibid., 3:517–18). With equal enthusiasm Josephus regarded the valley of Jericho and the plentiful spring of Elisha which waters it. There grow "the most charming and luxuriant parks. Of the date palms watered by it there are numerous varieties differing in flavor … here too grow the juicy balsam, the most precious of all local products, the henna shrubs and myrrh trees so that it would be no misnomer to describe this place as divine" (ibid., 4:468ff.). Similar praise of the date palms of Jericho are found in the nature studies of Pliny, who gives the names and characteristics of the varieties of dates which were export items (Historia Naturalis, 13:9). He also mentions the balsam groves of Jericho and En-Gedi, and writes parenthetically: "But to all the other odors that of balsam is considered preferable, a plant that has only been bestowed by Nature upon the land of Judea. In former times it was cultivated in two gardens only, both of which belonged to kings of that country.… The Jews vented their rage upon this shrub just as they were in the habit of doing against their own lives, while, on the other hand, the Romans protected it; indeed combats have taken place before now in defense of a shrub … the fifth year after the conquest of Judea, these cuttings with the suckers were sold for the price of 800,000 sesterces" (ibid., 12:25, 24).

On account of the density of the population, holdings were quite small. The typical size may be estimated from Eusebius's account (Historiae Eccleseastiea, 3:20, 1ff.) of the two grandsons of Judah, brother of Jesus, who declared to the Roman government that they derived their sustenance from an area of 39 plethra (34,000 m².) which they cultivated with their own hands, from which it follows that the average family derived its livelihood from 17,000 m². Several passages in talmudic literature refer to the unit bet kor or 30 se'ah (about 23,000 m² in area) as a large field and a substantial inheritance (e.g., Mekh., Be-Shallaḥ, 87–88). On the other hand, some individuals at the close of the Second Temple period possessed immense fortunes. Among them was the almost legendary R. Eleazar b. Ḥarsum (Kid. 49b), a high priest, "of whom it was said that his father had left him 1,000 cities, yet he would wander from place to place to study Torah" (Yoma 35b). These cities were razed during the Bar Kokhba War (tj, Ta'an. 4:8, 69a)

In those times, the state of agriculture fluctuated constantly in accordance with the policies of the Roman conquerors. Josephus relates that, after the destruction, Titus issued a decree expropriating Jewish landholdings which he ordered sold or leased out (Wars, 5:421). At first these lands were acquired mainly by Gentiles who leased the plots to the former Jewish owners, and these later tried to buy back their land. To assure the restoration of the lands to their former Jewish owners, the talmudic sages enacted ordinances forbidding competition and speculation in land (bb 9:4; tj, Ket. 2:1, 26b; Git. 52a, et al.). On the other hand, a class of extremely wealthy landowners emerged at that time like the nasi dynasty, R. Eliezer b. Azariah, and others, who had acquired heirless estates from the Roman government. Asked what constituted a wealthy person, their contemporary R. Tarfon answered: "Whoever owns 100 vineyards, 100 fields, and 100 slaves to work them" (Shab. 25b). The response, it should be noted, is one of the isolated instances in rabbinic literature which refers to the employment of slave labor in agriculture (see also tj, Yev. 8:1, 8d). Gentile (there were no Jewish) slaves were chiefly employed in housework and urban domestic services, whereas agriculture was the province of farmers, tenants, lessors, and hired workers. In the first years following the destruction, Gentiles still possessed and also worked many former Jewish farms. Rabbinic literature alludes to this situation in the gloomy baraita: "For seven years the Gentiles held vintage in the vineyards soaked with Israel's blood without fertilizing" (Git. 57a). With the passage of time, however, the Jewish population resettled on the farms and regained ownership. Natural increase forced the size of each family's holding to decrease, the average now being four-five bet se'ah, i.e., 3,000–3,500 m². of field crops, the area known as bet ha-peras (Oho. 17:2 – in Latin: forus). Plots of this size are mentioned in deeds of sale dating from the time of Bar Kokhba, found in Wadi Murabbaʿat in the desert of Judah (Benoit, Milik, de Vaux, Les grottes de Murabaat, pp. 155ff.). These documents speak of the sale of "an area where five se'ah of wheat can be sown." Presumably an area of 3,500 m² sufficed to supply the cereal needs of a family. In addition the farmer owned vines and orchards. Executed during Bar Kokhba's rebellion, these deeds prove that even in the thick of war, Jews continued to buy and sell land.

The rebellion and its aftermath seriously affected Jewish agriculture. Certain localities were utterly devastated, "since Hadrian had come and destroyed the country" (tj, Pe'ah 7:1, 20a). Especially in Judea, where the Roman government took possession of the lands of the thousands of war dead, the desolation was great. In the words of the aggadah: "Hadrian owned a large vineyard, 18 mil square, and he surrounded it with a fence of the slain of Bethar" (Lam. R. 2:2, no. 4). Galilee, too, sustained heavy damage. Before "the times became troubled," the area had been so densely populated that R. Simeon b. Yoḥai found a way of measuring the distances between the villages so that not one was beyond the Sabbath range (2,000 cubits) of its nearest neighbor (tj, Er. 5:1, 22b–c). Its olive groves had previously been so numerous that one "dipped one's feet in oil" there, yet later "olives [were] not normally found there" (tj, Pe'ah, 7:1, 20a). Oppressive decrees and heavy taxes jeopardized the existence, both physical and spiritual, of the farmer. Before the revolt, Simeon b. Yoḥai, the disciple of Akiva, was particularly interested in the religious precepts applying to land; after it, he complained: "Is that possible? If a person plows in the plowing season and reaps in the reaping season… what is to become of the Torah?" (Ber. 35a). The suggested solution was employment in trade and in crafts in the city. Yet once again, agriculture recovered. Jewish settlement expanded and even penetrated to the northern coastal regions (Tosef., Kil. 2:16).

Further increases in population led to further decrease in the size of family holdings. In the next generation there is a conflict of opinion as to what constituted the minimum size of land divisible among heirs. The majority of sages held it to be a plot large enough to provide each heir with one and a half bet se'ah (1,176 m².) while Judah regarded a field even half that size as divisible among heirs (bb 7:6; Tosef., bm 11:9). Normally a single owner would have several fields of this size, yet there were cases where an individual farmer had to subsist on an even smaller plot of land. A certain Samaritan reportedly drew his sustenance from a field a bet se'ah in area (784 m²; Ket. 112a).

The period from the disciples of Akiva until the third amoraic generation (middle of second century to end of third century c.e.), was both spiritually and physically one of the most productive periods of all times. It saw an unprecedented progress in agriculture. Highly cultured, the Jewish farmer did not allow himself to stagnate and he was always ready to adopt new techniques and to experiment with new strains (see *Agricultural Methods). Many aggadot celebrate the abundance and fertility of the land of Israel at the time, and mention grape clusters as large as oxen; mustard as tall as fig trees; two radishes being a full load for a camel; turnips large enough to constitute a fox's den; a peach large enough to feed a man and his animal to satiety, etc. Certain localities were designated as the referent in "the land of milk and honey," as for instance, sixteen mil around Sepphoris in Galilee and the vicinities of Lydda and Ono (see Meg. 6a; Ket. 111b; tj, Pe'ah 7:4, 20a–b).

Depression set in at the end of R. Johanan's lifetime. "In his days, the world changed" (tj, Pe'ah 7:4, 20a), either through natural causes (bm 105h) or else through Roman taxation. In any event the lot of the farmer became progressively worse. Farmers had, in earlier times, most strictly observed the prescriptions of the sabbatical year; now they became more lax (Sanh. 26a). Previously "one was not supposed to raise sheep and goats" in the land of Israel; now Johanan advocated sheep raising (Ḥul. 84a). It had obviously become increasingly difficult for the Jewish farmer to be self-supporting. In principle, R. Eliezer, who had previously laid down that whoever did not own land was no man, now came to the cruel realization that there was no occupation less distinguished than agriculture. Only those farmers close to the rulers could maintain themselves, and he therefore concluded: "Land was only given to the powerful" (Yev. 63a; Sanh. 58b).

An exodus from village to city ensued in which the process of the displacement of the Jewish farmer began. Gentiles replaced them to such an extent, that the question arose as to whether most of the land of Palestine was in Gentile or Jewish hands. The new owners neither felt an attachment to the land nor possessed the skills of their predecessors. Especially in the hill regions, lands were now abandoned or turned into pastures, and once more the forests began to encroach on the deserted farms.

The Byzantine-Muslim Period

Under Byzantine rule, the situation hardly improved. However there is evidence, even for that time, of the existence of Jewish settlements in the Valley of Jezreel and in the Negev, as well, where remains of exquisite ancient synagogues are visible (Bet Alfa, Nirim, etc.). The Nabatean agriculture which flourished in the Negev mountain area is also noteworthy. This people had developed a highly perfected system of gathering runoff water and so irrigating arid, desolate regions. With the Moslem conquest, many Byzantine lands were laid waste, the owners fleeing or killed. These lands became state property and were leased out to tenant farmers. The Muhammadan rulers were totally ignorant of agriculture and their heavy taxes drove the owners from the land. Here and there, especially in Galilee, some Jewish settlements persevered. Later, there was an improvement. By the 11^th century Ramleh figs had become an important export item, and cotton, sugar cane, and indigo plants were cultivated.

The Crusader conquest wreaked further damage on local agriculture. The Franks, who took possession, farmed large tracts extensively, using a combination of European and local techniques. The village population became serfs indentured to the land. There is almost no information available on Judea at that time. It is known, however, that Jews suffered less than the Muslim population at the hands of the crusaders. There is mention of Jewish settlements in Galilee (Gischala (Gush Ḥalav), Alma, Kefar Baram, etc.) where the population engaged mainly in handicrafts and trade. Little is known of Jews in Palestine in the time of the Mamluks. At the end of the 14^th century, Jews expelled from France settled in Ereẓ Israel, among them Estori Parḥi, whose work Kaftor va-Feraḥ describes the country and its agriculture. The author made his home in Beth-Shean, an area where Jews were living, as they did too, in Safed, Gischala, Lydda, Ramleh, and Gaza.

A marked improvement in agriculture and an increase in population occurred under Ottoman rule, at the end of the 16^th century. Jews were engaged in the manufacture of finished products from agricultural raw materials: wine, textiles, and dyeing. They lived in Ein Zeitim, Biriyyah, Peki'in, Kefar Kanna, and elsewhere. In the 17^th century the Jews in the villages were harassed by both Bedouin tribes and government soldiers; the population there consequently declined. Dahir al-Amr who ruled over Galilee in the 1740s encouraged the settlement of fallahin, and Jews also came to live in the region, in villages like Kefar Yasif and Shefaram. After his death, another period of decline ensued. Only at the end of the 19^th century was there noticeable improvement. The Jewish population increased, and Sir Moses Montefiore among others formulated plans for settling Jews on the land. The Mikveh Israel agricultural school was founded in 1870 and a little later the first Jewish colonies, Moẓa and Petaḥ Tikvah sprang up. In 1881, the American consul in Jerusalem noted that 1,000 Jewish families were earning their livelihood from agriculture. Colonization gained new strength from the First Aliyah in 1882, and from then and until today the extent of Jewish agricultural settlement has been constantly expanding (see *Israel, State of: Agriculture).

[Jehuda Feliks]

in babylon

The Jews in Babylonia enjoyed a considerable measure of internal autonomy under the rule of the *Exilarch, who was almost a tributary monarch; consequently the agricultural customs and usages appertaining to the land of Israel obtained in Jewish Babylonia and it is specifically stated that the ten enactments traditionally attributed to Joshua to protect the sometimes conflicting rights of cattle owners, farmers, and the ordinary public, obtained also in Babylon (bk 81b). On the other hand it was clearly laid down that when the civil law conflicted with Jewish law in these matters the former prevailed (cf. bb 55a). During the whole of the period of the amoraim and their successors the *savoraim, i.e., from the third to the eighth centuries, the economy of Babylonia was essentially an agricultural one. From the end of the fifth century onward however, that agricultural economy gradually changed to a money one, and by the eighth century the latter prevailed. This important change is reflected in the *takkanah enacted by R. Huna ha-Levi b. Isaac and R. Manasseh b. Joseph, the geonim of Pumbedita, together with their colleague Bebai of Sura, between 785 and 788 c.e. whereby the previous law that a widow could claim her ketubbah only on the landed property of her husband was changed to enable her to claim on his movable property also. Generally speaking the agricultural conditions in Babylonia were similar to those of Ereẓ Israel, with the result that the Babylonian amoraim found little difficulty in applying the rules laid down in the Mishnah, which reflects conditions in Ereẓ Israel, to those of their own country. Nevertheless, there were distinct differences, some of which are herewith noted. The land was more fertile than that of Ereẓ Israel. Situated between the Euphrates and the Tigris, and intersected with numerous tributaries and man-made canals, there was an abundant water supply which was largely independent of rain, and on the verse of Jeremiah 51:13 "thou that dwellest upon many waters, abundant in treasures" the Palestinian amora*Hoshaiah commented "Why are the granaries of Babylonia always filled with grain? Because there is an abundance of water," while the Babylonian Rav commented, "Babylonia is rich, because the harvest is gathered even when there is no rain" (Ta'an. 10a). Where in Ereẓ Israel prayers for the relief of drought were characteristic, in Babylonia public prayers were offered against the peril of floods, and were even offered up on their behalf by their coreligionists in Ereẓ Israel (Ta'an. 22b). The climate was also distinctly better than in Ereẓ Israel (rh 20a). As a result Jewish Babylonia enjoyed exceptional fertility and the Euphrates is made to say "I cause plants to grow in 30 days and vegetables in three days" (Gen. R. 16:3). The date palm was the most characteristic of the trees of Babylonia. It grew luxuriously and extensively. Rav stated that their abundance enabled the Jews of Babylonia to find an easy livelihood there (Ta'an. 29b) and Ulla, of Ereẓ Israel on a visit to Babylon, remarked that "the reason God exiled the Jews to Babylonia was that, having plentiful dates for food, they could devote themselves to the study of Torah" (Pes. 87b). At the time of the emperor Julian (361–63 c.e.) the whole of Mesene as far as the Persian Gulf was like one huge palm grove. The olive, which was one of the staple commodities of Ereẓ Israel, did not flourish to any large extent in Babylonia. From a non-talmudic source it is learnt that it began to be more extensively cultivated in the fourth century but in the early period its place, both for lighting and for food, was taken by sesame oil. Thus when R. Tarfon wished to limit the oil for the Sabbath lamp to olive oil (Shab. 2:2) Johanan b. Nuri protested, "lf so, what shall the Babylonians do, who have only sesame oil" (Shab. 26a), and so characteristic was this difference that whereas "oil" without any qualification was taken in Ereẓ Israel to refer to olive oil, in Babylonia it was taken to refer to sesame (Ned. 53a). Cotton seed oil was also in common use (Shab. 21a). Hemp, which had to be imported into Ereẓ Israel (Kil. 9:7), at least in mishnaic times (in the amoraic period it seems to have been successfully cultivated; cf. tj, Kil. 32d) was grown extensively in Babylonia and cloth made from it was common and cheaper than linen (bm 51a). It was also used for ropes (Ket. 67a). A plant unique in Babylonia, as compared with Israel, was the cuscuta from which beer was manufactured. In some parts of the country it was regarded as the national drink as wine was in Ereẓ Israel (Pes. 8a); R. Papa was a brewer (Pes. 113a). Where pepper was regarded as the most exotic of plants in Ereẓ Israel (cf. Suk. 35a), it was freely grown in Babylonia, as was ginger (Ber. 36b; Shab. 141a).

Livestock

Despite the agricultural fertility of Babylonia, it would appear that the rearing and breeding of "small cattle"; sheep and goats, was even more profitable in Babylonia. Thus it is given as good counsel that one should sell one's fields to invest the proceeds in flocks, but not vice versa, and R. Ḥisda refers to the wealth this occupation brings to those who engage in it (Ḥul. 84a–b). From a statement that one should clothe himself with the wool of his own sheep and drink the milk of his own sheep and goats (ibid.), it would appear that every householder had a few, and there is other evidence that the tendency was for small individual flocks. Cows and oxen were bred both for plowing and for slaughter (Naz. 31b). The ass was used for riding and the mule for transport (bm 97a). Horses were apparently used only for military purposes (Av. Zar. 16a; Rashi to Pes. 113a). Camels were also used for travel and the dromedary, the "flying camel," is mentioned as a means of rapid transport (Mak. 5a). All the common domestic birds, chicken, ducks, and geese were extensively raised (cf. Beẓ. 24a) as was the breeding of pigeons (bb 23b), and the Jews of Babylonia were skilled agriculturists (bb 80a). Fish were abundant in the rivers and lakes of Babylonia and there is extensive reference to the various methods of catching them (see Newman, pp. 136–40).

[Louis Isaac Rabinowitz]

in the middle ages

Ideals

The transition of the Jews in the Diaspora to an urban population mainly constituted of merchants and artisans began from about the end of the eighth century. Yet Jews continued to regard agriculture as the ideal and most important Jewish occupation, the basis of the way of life and social ethics emerging from the Bible and permeating the whole of talmudic literature. In 13^th-century Germany the Jewish moralist *Eleazar b. Judah b. Kalonymus of Worms, in describing the primary, divinely ordained state of society, relates that God "created the world so that all shall live in pleasantness, that all shall be equal, that one shall not lord it over the other, that all shall cultivate the land …" However, "when warriors multiplied, and every man relied on his might, when they left off cultivating the land and turned to robbery, He brought down on them the Flood" (Ḥokhmat ha-Nefefesh, 22b). The utopian agricultural society is here described as being destroyed by knightly feudal behavior which brought divine retribution on the world. Ideals of this kind continued to persist and have inspired the return to the soil in Zionism and related attempts at Jewish colonization in modern times.

History

The place of agriculture in Jewish economic and social life steadily diminished from the fourth century. Increasingly severe edicts were issued by Christian emperors prohibiting Jews from keeping slaves, first applying to Christian slaves only and then to all slaves. These restrictions obviated any large-scale Jewish agricultural undertakings by depriving them of workers. The church also developed the conception that Jews should be denied any positions of authority or honor. This attitude later automatically excluded Jews from the feudal structure based on land ownership and the social structure which it combined. In these conditions, Jews were only fit for the lowest rank of serfs, but the religious and moral aspects of such a position made this impossible for all practical purposes.

Under Islamic administrations, both Jewish and Christian farmers bore the additional burden of a special land tax, the Kharaj, and suffered from a policy by which the produce delivered in land taxes was excessively undervalued. In Iraq, where there was a large concentration of Jews engaged in agriculture, they suffered from the general neglect of irrigation in the first two generations of Muslim rule. On the other hand, urban life and trading as an occupation were respected in Islamic society; they were a powerful attraction in the Caliphate, in particular to the Jew who wanted to escape oppressive discrimination in the villages. From the second half of the ninth century, the cultural milieux of the great Muslim cities like Baghdad drew increasing numbers of the population. The expansion of the Caliphate and the diversification of its economy provided growing opportunities for Jews in urban occupations. Additionally, the requirements of organized religion formed a further incentive to urbanization for the majority of Jews.

Thus from the end of the eighth century agriculture became a marginal Jewish occupation in both Christian and Muslim lands. However, Jews continued as farmers wherever legal and social conditions permitted. Large groups of Jewish farmers are known in North Africa in the ninth century. They are mentioned in connection with irrigation, gardening, viticulture, and the commercial production of cheese (which is known to have been stamped with the word berakhah, "blessing"). Livestock breeding was apparently an unimportant branch in Jewish agriculture. In Egypt in the 12^th century Jews entrusted cattle or sheep to non-Jews to be raised for meat. Similarly, they frequently handed over fields, vineyards, orchards, and gardens to Gentile sharecroppers, although Jewish bustāni (gardeners) are mentioned in documents of the Cairo *Genizah. They perhaps worked in "the orchard of the synagogue of the Palestinians" in Old Cairo (Fostat). While cheese making and beekeeping by Jews have a large place in the Genizah records, they are overshadowed by the production of wine. Naturally "pressers" of grapes are mentioned, although these probably worked only on a seasonal basis. Another agricultural specialist frequently mentioned in the Genizah from the 11^th to the 13^th centuries was the sukkari, the manufacturer and seller of sugar, which was produced mostly from cane but sometimes from raisins or dates. In western North Africa (the Maghreb) Jews owned cultivated land in the villages and city outskirts. Some of the tales of R. *Nissim b. Jacob of Kairouan (first half of the 11^th century) have a rural or semirural setting and are probably located in North Africa (cf. Hirschberg in bibliography).

After the Muslim conquest of Spain in 711, Jews there gradually entered the agrarian sphere taking advantage of changes such as the apportionment of land, liquidation sales, or the expropriation of rebels. Andalusia attracted a stream of immigrants from North Africa, including numerous Jews who were often skilled farmers. These possibly constituted the majority of Jewish landowners and peasants mentioned there in tenth-century records. Problems concerning cornfields and orchards are dealt with at length in the Spanish rabbinical responsa of the period, which also mention technical innovations, for instance pumping methods. The Jewish karram (winegrower) had to see to every aspect of viticulture, from amelioration of the soil to grape pressing. After the Spanish territories passed to Christian rule, Jews continued to engage in agriculture. In Leon and Castile, Aragon and Catalonia, Jews are often recorded as settlers and developers of newly occupied areas, frequently in collaboration with the monasteries. Jews owned large tracts of land, in particular near the towns, since many members of the Jewish upper strata participated in the parcellation and recolonization of lands captured from the Muslims during the Christian Reconquest from the 12^th century on. Some Jewish smallholders cultivated their own plots: fields and pastures, orchards and gardens are mentioned. Jews also employed hired labor. Some dealt in livestock and agricultural products, or engaged in crafts based on agricultural materials, such as hides and fibers. It is not known whether the raw material for the important Spanish-Jewish silk industry was produced locally or bought from Sicilian Jews.

In Italy, Jewish economic activity was not subjected to legal restrictions until the 16^th century, but the majority of Jews there lived in the cities. However, their (probably uninterrupted) presence in rural areas, particularly in central and southern Italy, is evidenced. Jews were among the first to cultivate the mulberry in Italy, and the flourishing silk industry was largely controlled by Jews. In Sicily Jews owned and cultivated vineyards and olive groves. Some excelled in cultivating the date palm; Frederick ii gave certain Jews the stewardship of his private grove. Beside these farmers there were Jewish fishermen. Sicilian Jews also owned land or herds which were looked after by non-Jews on a sharecropping basis. Many Jews in Sicily in the 13^th and 14^th centuries were engaged in commerce or crafts based on agriculture.

In southern France, especially in Provence, conditions were similar to those in Spain and Italy. Great Jewish allodia are mentioned in the early Middle Ages, some near Narbonne are recalled in a legendary context. In the greater part of medieval France and Germany, however, the Jews who engaged in agriculture were the exception rather than the rule. In the time of Charlemagne (eighth–ninth centuries), some Jews still farmed large tracts of land. In suitable regions Jews are found specializing in viticulture, fruit growing, and dairy farming. These capital intensive and semi urban branches of agriculture could be combined with commercial activities. In addition, while vineyards or orchards required expert supervision, they did not demand continual labor, so that even scholars like *Rashi and Jacob *Tam could grow grapes for a living while devoting time to study.

In the Balkans and Greece, *Benjamin of Tudela (mid-12^th century) found a Jewish community of 200 (families?) in Crissa, engaged in agriculture, and another near Mount Parnassus. Further east, Jewish farmers were already found in the tenth century. On the northern shores of the Black Sea they introduced advanced techniques of plowing and perhaps also new irrigation methods, and rice growing. Rice was in fact widely grown in the Volga region under the *Khazars, but was discontinued after their downfall.

In Eastern Europe, Jews turned to the countryside more frequently from the 14^th century. When expelled from many of the cities, they settled on the estates of the nobility and in villages. The transition was also due to their increasing connection with the growing and sale of wine (see *Wine and Liquor Trade). In Lithuania, Jewish settlement in the towns was early combined with agricultural activity. Thus Grand Duke Witold granted the Jews of Grodno in 1389 the right to "use the sown pasture land which they hold now or may acquire in the future, paying to our treasury the same as the gentile citizens." With the development of the *arenda ("leasehold") system and trade in agricultural products, the Jews in Poland-Lithuania became increasingly involved in agriculture as leaseholders of agricultural assets, for instance of distilleries or mills, or as administrators of the rural estates; they also dealt in everything pertaining to agriculture and supplied the needs of both peasants and landlords. The Jewish leaseholder (arendar) of agricultural assets on a large scale gradually developed into a kind of capitalist farmer, entering agriculture by providing capital and business management. The large number of small-scale arendars also became increasingly involved in village life and affairs. Not only the many Jews living near or in the villages, but also those in the small Jewish townships that became characteristic of Polish and Lithuanian Jewry owned vegetable gardens and orchards near their houses. Their livelihood and way of life was closely bound up with peasant life and activities. However, the number of Jews who may be classified as belonging to the agricultural sector at any given time in the period remains a moot point. These connections to a certain degree enabled the renewal of Jewish agriculture in modern times. It is safe to generalize that the greater part of Eastern European Jewry was conditioned by semirural environment until well into the 19^th century.

trade in agricultural products: middle ages and modern times

In the early Middle Ages Jewish international trade mainly consisted of commerce in agricultural products from the Far and Middle East destined for luxury consumption in Western Europe. Jewish merchants traded in *spices at least from the sixth century (see *Radanites), and also in dyestuffs (see *Dyeing). Conducted on a large scale, this trade was naturally based on the contacts established by Jews in the Orient with local producers and merchants. Information from the end of the tenth century shows extensive activity in this sphere by Jewish merchants from Egypt, Tunisia, and Syria. During the 11^th and 12^th centuries trading in agricultural products was carried on by Jews in all the Mediterranean countries, either as individual enterprises or, when on a larger scale, frequently in partnerships, which sometimes also included Muslim merchants. The trade included sugar exported from Egypt, and dried fruits, especially from Syria, as well as condiments, dyes, oil, cheese, and wines throughout the area.

The small Jewish merchants at that time included peddlers who acted as intermediaries between the rural producers and the city. In the Near East as well as in the more backward European countries they traded their goods for agricultural products which they sold at the urban markets. Jews living in the Aegean islands of Byzantium sometimes leased the state revenues from the trade in grain and wines. Attempts to oust Jews from dealing in wines, grain, and other foodstuffs were made in France and Germany in the eighth and ninth centuries, for instance by the Synod of Frankfurt in 794. Bishop *Agobard complained that the Jews of Lyons in his day dealt in wines and meat. Jews owned vineyards and dealt in wines in France up to the 12^th century. In England, the Statutum de judeismo of 1275, after forbidding the Jews to engage in moneylending, authorized them to practice trades and crafts. A large number of wealthy Jews therefore turned to trade in grain and wool. While the Jewish merchants of Bristol, Canterbury, Exeter, and Hereford mainly dealt in grain, those of Lincoln, Norwich, and Oxford were wool merchants. In the states of Christian Spain, the Jewish trade in agricultural products was widely developed, and in some places ordinances regulating this trade were issued by the local communities. In Portugal in the 14^th century the authorities restricted the activities of Jewish peddlers and traders who bought honey, oil, and wax from the mountain villages and sold these commodities in the cities.

Even when moneylending became the paramount Jewish economic activity in Western Europe the Jews in the West continued to deal in agricultural products, in particular in wines, wool, and grain, frequently in combination with their loan activities. This is attested in the responsa literature of the period. In the 15^th century many Jews in the southeastern parts of the German Empire acted as middlemen in buying the products of the villages and landed estates (Gut) and selling them to the towns. Buying up, and especially horse-trading, became the specialties of Jews in *Bavaria and Franconia, in which they continued to engage well into modern times. The Jewish peddler later found in the United States was continuing a traditional Jewish occupation in Germany and Eastern Europe. However, the anti-Jewish enactments passed by the church frequently succeeded in preventing Jews from trading in agricultural products. The bull issued by Pope Paul iv in 1555 included a provision prohibiting Jews from dealing in grain. In Venice the ricondotta of 1777 prohibited Jews from trading in grain and foodstuffs. With the economic development of Western Europe after the great geographical discoveries of the 15^th and 16^th centuries, *Poland-*Lithuania became the chief supplier of agricultural products, cattle, and forest produce to the West. Up to the time of the partitions of Poland at the end of the 18^th century Jews took a considerable part in the extraction and sale of the agricultural produce on which the arenda system was based, and thus became associated with the export trade to the West, using both the river and land routes. In the late 17^th and during the 18^th centuries the role of the *Court Jews as victuallers to the armies of the Hapsburg Empire and princes of Germany was largely facilitated by their contacts with Jews in Poland-Lithuania who provided the necessary supplies. The financial success of Jews in this field often became the basis for the accumulation of large capital, as instanced by the career of S. *Zbitkower. Trade in cattle, and especially oxen, was one of the most important branches of the export trade in which Jews took part from the 16^th century. It entailed the driving of cattle from Eastern Europe to the West, then the best way of transporting meat. The major part of the herd was bought in Moldavia; the cattle were fattened for a time in the Ukraine, and with the additions bought there were driven to Silesia, West Germany, and France. Jewish dealers sold part of their cattle at the large fairs in Brzeg on the Oder. After the partitions of Poland and up to the present century, the traditional Jewish trade in agricultural products continued, despite attempts by the Russian authorities to expel the Jews from the villages. In the *shtetls of the *Pale of Settlement in *Belorussia, *Volhynia, and the *Ukraine the small-scale Jewish trader would buy goods from the peasants on market days, or through itinerant peddlers and dealers, and sell the village products in bulk to the larger Jewish merchants, who then exported them to Germany. In consequence, trade in essential agricultural products used in industry, such as bristles, flax, and hemp, was almost a Jewish monopoly in this area during the period. Identical in structure was the grain trade in Galicia and Poland in the 19^th century, in which the Dorfgaenger or Dorfgeher were engaged. The Jewish traders traveled from village to village, visiting markets and fairs in the small towns where they bought grain and also cattle, despite official attempts to prohibit them from doing so.

The grain trade of Poland became almost exclusively a Jewish preserve during the 19^th century. Many Jewish firms dealt in grain, and Jews also acted as the agents for German and French firms, some also in Jewish ownership. There were 36,907 Jews occupied in the grain trade in Poland in 1897, i.e., 6.9% of the Jewish merchants living in this area. Of the 224 grain merchants in business in Warsaw in 1867, 214 were Jews. In 1873, five Jews became members of the constituent committee of the Corn Exchange in Warsaw. Jewish grain dealers were also prominent during the establishment of the state grain stores in Prussia, Silesia, and Galicia in the 18^th century. Jewish contractors undertook to provide approximately 74% of the grain during the shortage in Galicia in 1785–86. Several communities in East Prussia and Latvia, such as those of Koenigsberg and Riga, owe their origin and development to the expansion of Jewish interests in the grain trade. In the 18^th century the bulk of the grain exported by the land route from Poland to Silesia was concentrated in Jewish hands. In Lithuania, Jews who exported grain to Silesia bought colonial goods in Breslau, which they supplied to the Lithuanian towns. A large part of the wine export trade of Hungary, which in the 18^th and 19^th centuries went largely to Poland, Ukraine, and Czechoslovakia, was in Jewish hands. The wine merchants sometimes organized armed caravans to defend the transports from marauders. Between the two world wars a large number of Jews in Poland and the Baltic States continued to engage in the trade in agricultural products, from peddling to large-scale export business, although attempts were made on a governmental level to oust the Jews from this economic sector and, through the creation of state-subsidized agricultural cooperatives, to all but eliminate Jews from trading with the local agriculturists. Thus from the end of the Middle Ages Jews played an important role – and, in many regions, a pioneering one – in the development of trade between manor and village on the one hand and the city on the other, an essential factor in the rise of modern economy.

[Jacob Goldberg]

in modern europe

In the modern period, Jews in Europe developed direct contact with agriculture in various ways. Jewish businessmen in Western Europe entered the agricultural sphere as part of their share in the development of capitalist economy. Many of the merchants owning plantations in the West Indies, especially of sugar cane, were Jews. In continental Europe from the late 18^th century Jewish merchant bankers frequently branched out into mining and industry, and also into forestry and capitalist farming. This type of activity, chiefly financial and commercial at least in origin, for example sugar beet growing, was developed by a significant number of Jews in southern Germany in the first half of the 19^th century and in Russia in the second half of the century. The number of such pioneer businessmen who were actively involved in farm management by the end of the 19^th century cannot be ascertained. Apparently at least in Galicia, Slovakia, and Romania, the class of Jewish capitalist owners or tenants of agricultural lands or assets had become quite large by 1900, and was directly concerned with farming.

It was in Eastern Europe that the movement to settle numbers of Jews on the land took place. From the middle of the 19^th century the rapid growth of population and deteriorating economic conditions in Russia forced many of the Jews there out of their traditional occupations. A large minority turned to agriculture, chiefly the suburban type of dairy and truck farming. By doing so, the small-scale Jewish farmer could remain in the same locality, avoid the difficulties of obtaining larger areas of land, and concentrate on intensive cultivation of commercial crops.

Already from the 18^th century the population increase and economic impoverishment combined with new ideologies which envisioned a more "natural" mode of existence for the Jews to press for changes in Jewish social life. The theoreticians proposed alterations in the Jewish occupational structure with the aim of achieving a more balanced Jewish social stratification. This, they considered, would make Jews less open to the attacks of antisemites who condemned Jews for their pursuit of "non-productive" economic activities (see *History, Jewish Medieval and Modern; *Haskalah, *Antisemitism; *Zionism). Various schemes were proposed on both governmental and private initiative for the "productivization" of the Jewish masses and included plans for Jewish agricultural settlement. These were either confined to the country concerned, or combined programs for emigration and colonization with broader social and political issues. Among these the most notable are the Zionist movement and the projects of Baron *Hirsch, as well as the *Birobidzhan scheme.

Jewish researchers estimate that the number of Jewish agriculturalists of all types in Eastern Europe reached a maximum of between 400,000 and 500,000 in the early 1930s, i.e., forming up to 6% of the total Jewish population there. They varied both in the form of agricultural organization and the type of farming undertaken. They included the Jewish shepherds in the Carpathian mountains, beekeepers, owners of milch cows, or vegetable growers in the small Galician and Bessarabian towns, and the mixed farming colonists in Ukraine. Although the Jewish output was insignificant in the total agricultural sector, Jews took an important part and even predominated in certain branches. In northern Poland, Jewish farmers predominated in vegetable growing, including hotbed crops, notably cucumbers. In certain districts in Poland and Bessarabia, tobacco was practically a Jewish speciality.

The recent development of a Jewish agricultural sector has undergone many vicissitudes both in direction and scope, through ideological and political changes, both within Jewish society and in the attitudes of the environing societies and states. These are revealed in the history of the Zionist movement in Ereẓ Israel and of the settlements in *Crimea and Birobidzhan. The greatest interruptions were caused by the Russian revolution of 1917 and the British Mandate in Palestine.

Ukraine

Although proposals for Jewish agricultural colonization were aired in Austria and Prussia at the end of the 18^th century, the first substantial attempts to carry out such a scheme were initiated by the czarist government in 1807. They were commenced in the governments of Kherson and Yekaterinoslav as part of renewed efforts by the government to colonize the steppe and at the same time to assimilate the Jews, to remove them from the villages and townships of the Ukraine Pale of Settlement, and to make them less "parasitical." A total of 38 villages, each with 100 to 300 family farms were founded in these areas. Some were given Hebrew names, such as Nahar-Tov and Sedei Menuḥah. According to Russian official data, these 38 villages included almost 7,000 farms with 42,000 inhabitants in 1913. The average area of the holding was 11.8 desyatines (about 32 acres).

The Jewish settlements in the Ukraine suffered severely after World War i during the revolution and the civil war, but most were reconstructed with aid from Jewish organizations such as ort and ica. In 1924 additional villages, now with Yiddish names such as Blumenfeld and Frayland, were founded, partly by younger members of the old settlements. In 1927 there were 35,000 Jews living in 48 villages in the Ukraine, farming a total of about 250,000 acres.

At first confined to grain production, the colonies in the Ukraine later diversified their output by introducing livestock and fodder, vegetables, and fruits. After the war the production of irrigated crops, notably grapes, was much increased, and cooperative dairies were set up. Loans and instructors supplied by ica and ort assisted these developments, which resulted in well established prosperous communities of a pronounced Jewish and rural character. In the late 1920s the Soviet government allocated additional land for Jewish settlements. Around the existing core there developed three administrative districts with a majority of Jewish farmers: Kalinindorf, Nay-Zlatopol, and Stalindorf. The Ukraine thus harbored the largest concentration of Jewish agriculturalists in Europe, who had their own schools, a newspaper (Der Stalindorfer Emes), and a Yiddish theater. The new villages, numbering over 50, were based on mechanized cooperative farming, with more livestock and acreage per family than previously. Machinery and instruction were supplied partly by the government and partly by ica. Two further sections of Jewish settlement developed in the Ukraine in the 1920s, in the vicinity of Odessa and in the district of Pervomaysk. After economic changes villages and agricultural suburbs comprising several thousands of Jewish families grew up in these two districts. The movement of Jews to the soil in the southern Ukraine received a renewed impetus in 1928–30 with the Soviet drive for collectivization.

Belorussia

The czarist regulations of 1835 provided a legal basis for Jewish colonies within the Pale of Settlement. These western Russian provinces, which then included Lithuania and Volhynia, provided many of the settlers of the Ukraine and also saw the growth of a similar Jewish agricultural sector themselves. However the climate and soil in the west were much less favorable. Settlement was more scattered and land tenure less uniform. At the beginning of the 20^th century there were 258 Jewish settlements in the western provinces, with almost 6,000 farms and 36,000 inhabitants. These villages each had a maximum of 40 family units, farming an average of 18 acres. On government land a unit might comprise 30 acres, but on land privately leased or purchased they ranged from 5 to 13 acres. This compelled intensification (an average of two cows per unit was high for these regions) and search for supplementary employment. Tillage remained according to local technique on a three-year rotation. Technical and living standards improved from the beginning of the 20^th century, due to the aid furnished by ort and ica. In these conditions, the settlers in the area who overcame the initial hardships never reached prosperity, but developed a specific Jewish rural way of life in which they took pride.

After the war most of these villages remained in the ussr. All had suffered severely from the years of fighting in World War i and the revolution of 1917. In the early 1920s thousands of Belorussians, including Jews, were driven by hunger to become farmers. The Jews tended to prefer suburban lots, but collectives received higher land quotas. In the collective, it was also easier to maintain Jewish cohesion and cling to some vestiges of Jewish religious life. Thus, about 40% of the 2,300 families who settled on the land before 1925 were members of collective groups. The movement, encouraged by allocation of public land, continued until 1929. There was then a total of 9,100 Jewish farmer families in Belorussia, with 58,500 members and 170,000 acres. Most of these specialized in dairy farming, preferring fodder crops to grains, and many kept orchards and gardens. The introduction of tractors facilitated the replacement of draft horses by dairy cattle. In the Mogilev and Bobruisk districts the majority of Jewish agriculturalists were individual farmers living on the fringes of the small towns, receiving aid from ort. Collectives predominated in the Minsk district; they received government assistance and later became kolkhozes. Many of the Jewish kolkhozes eventually merged with non-Jewish ones and lost their Jewish identity (see also *Birobidzhan and *Crimea).

Poland

The dissolution of the state toward the end of the 18^th century, combined with efforts to reform Polish society and political life, invested the attempts to turn Jews to agriculture with an importance and attention far beyond their real scope. Even so, there were considerable achievements, for which the initiative came from various sources, including the upper circles of Jewish society, enlightened members of the Polish gentry, and Russian governmental circles. They succeeded in bringing the movement for settling Jews on the land to public attention, and in developing Jewish village life. By the middle of the 19^th century there were about 30,000 Jews living from agriculture in the central districts of Poland. Ten Jewish villages were considered models for the surrounding areas.

After World War i, Poland inherited the Lithuanian and Volhynian areas of Belorussia, where there were 1,400 Jewish farms. About half were in the northern section, only one-third of the farms had less than 15 acres each; in the more fertile south the majority were small-scale units. Especially in the early 1920s, additional Jewish families turned to farming in northern Poland, settling in areas adjacent to established units as well as in new locations. The new settlers were all tenants, and in this respect were worse off economically than their forerunners. They concentrated in the small towns and city suburbs rather than in the villages, specializing in truck farming, notably of cucumbers; from the suburbs of Vilna and other cities they marketed hotbed vegetables as far as Warsaw. Near Grodno, Jews specialized in tobacco growing. In the mid-1930s there were close to 2,900 Jewish farm units in 142 locations in northeastern Poland, with approximately 60,000 acres. In Volhynia, 940 units in 20-odd locations farmed an additional 11,000 acres.

In Galicia, entirely different conditions had prevailed under Austrian rule. Here the Jewish agricultural sector comprised three classes: large landlords; tenants and agents; farm hands and smallholders. According to Austrian data of 1902, out of 2,430 large land- and forest-owners, 438 Jews owned a total of over 750,000 acres. Generally these were absentee owners: merchants, bankers, and industrialists, but some were actively concerned with farm management, and a few made a name for themselves as proficient farmers. Below the two upper classes, a stratum of Jewish subagents and even farm hands had developed. However, the majority of East Galician Jewish agriculturists were village shopkeepers, who also each owned a small plot. On part he grew vegetables and fodder; the rest he let to his non-Jewish neighbor. With the development of rural cooperative stores, however, many such shopkeepers were forced toward the end of the 19^th century to turn to these plots as their chief source of livelihood. The agricultural society of Jewish landlords: as well as Baron Hirsch's foundation, supported the movement to agriculture and encouraged marketing and dairy cooperatives. The 1921 census records 48,000 Jewish earners as at least partially subsisting on agriculture.

Developments in the interwar period, particularly after 1929, caused a renewed movement of Galician Jews to agriculture. In 1932 ica opened a central agency in Lvov, and at the same time grass root initiative culminated in the foundation of yilag ("Yidishe Landvirtshaftlikhe Gezelshaft": Jewish Agricultural Society). The credit facilities, education, and instruction provided by these two organizations encouraged modernization and cooperation. yilag published the monthly Der Yidisher Landvirt from 1933 to 1939. In 1933 there were already eight Jewish farming cooperatives and 12 cooperative dairies in Galicia, with a total membership of 1,400. The dairies processed 4½ million liters of milk annually. Dairy farming was quite profitable in the hill regions, where natural pasture enabled a family to keep up to five milch cows if the problems of marketing could be solved. The cooperatives therefore developed transportation as well as processing facilities, and branched out into retailing. Eventually six shops (four in Lvov alone) for dairy and poultry products under the name "Ḥemah" ("butter" in Hebrew) became very popular with the Jewish urban customer.

After World War ii, Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, of whom some had been farmers before the war, settled in villages in the districts formerly in Germany. ort renewed its activity in Poland and undertook the vocational guidance of the new farmers. Various educational projects were started. However, the whole movement was short-lived, and most participants soon left the soil (and the country).

Romania

The various sections of Romania differ greatly in their geography and history. In Bukovina, Austrian rule created social and political conditions similar to those of Galicia, with an accordingly similar structure of the Jewish agricultural sector. Of the small-scale farmers, who numbered 2,000 families before 1914, many owned their holdings, which averaged five to 25 acres. However, only approximately 500 families survived on the land after World War i, and these were completely impoverished. In the 1930s their reconstruction was planned and financed by ica, based on dairy or sugar-beet farming. In Bessarabia, early settlements had been part of the czarist projects, especially from 1850. Additional villages and scattered farms brought the number of Jewish farmers up to perhaps 5,500 families in the late 1920s. Of special interest in this region were the tobacco growers, who worked diminutive plots with effort and skill. Although well known for the high yield of their land and the quality of the leaves they produced, the Jewish tobacco growers could still barely subsist because of high rents and fluctuating prices. Before 1914, over 90% of the tobacco growers in Bessarabia had been Jews; they continued to predominate in the inter-war period. There were also many Jewish winegrowers in Bessarabia working under similar conditions, and with like success. Mixed farming, with much maize, was also represented in the Jewish sector. In the Carpathian Maramures, part of which belonged to Romania and part to Czechoslovakia in the inter-war period, numerous extremely poor Jews, perhaps numbering up to 60,000, gained a subsistence from cattle and sheep, with some supplementary orchards and beehives. Dairies were set up there by ica in the 1930s.

The process of the return of Jews in Europe to the countryside and villages from the towns is in part due to an intensification of the historical and economic trends which began in the later Middle Ages. However, the driving forces both from within Jewry itself and outside it have been mainly ideological and political.

[Shimshon Tapuach]

in the united states

As indicated in colonial records, there were individual Jewish landowners and farmers early in the 18^th century. The first attempt to establish a Jewish farm community, however, dates back to the 1820s, when Mordecai Manuel *Noah received permission to found his model community of Ararat in the Niagara River region of New York. During the same period, Moses Elias *Levy settled Jews on a Florida tract, and by 1837, 13 families launched the Sholem farm colony in Wawarsing, New York. Within five years the last were forced to disperse, partly because of depressed economic conditions. There were other isolated instances of Jewish farmers, including some in California, throughout the century.

By 1881, however, with the beginning of massive Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe, group settlement received a major impetus. Many of the newcomers were imbued with the agrarian idealism of the *Am Olam, stressing the nobility of farm labor as the most honest of occupations; a few had experience as agriculturalists in Russia. At the same time, the relatively small American Jewish community hoped to develop among the immigrants a healthy yeoman class, away from the cities; it became increasingly sensitive also to anti-immigration sentiment stemming not only from nativist elements, but also from the new urban working class. In a rural setting, philanthropy would combine with self help to absorb the newcomers. Such settlement efforts were aided by the *Alliance Israélite Universelle, and a number of new American organizations: at first the Hebrew Emigrant Aid Society (1882–83), then the Baron de Hirsch *Fund (1891– ) and its subsidiary, the *Jewish Agricultural Society (1900– ). A score of colonies were established in areas ranging from the swampy bayous of Louisiana to the dry prairies of Kansas and the Dakotas, as far northwest as Oregon; within a few years all failed for such reasons as poor site selection, floods, droughts, factionalism, insect blight, and always inadequate experience and financing. In the East, however, the settlements ringing *Vineland, n.j. (1882), and the all-Jewish town of Woodbine, n.j. (1891), survived into the 20^th century. Their staples were vegetables, especially sweet potatoes and small fruits.

Early in the 20^th century, both Vineland and Woodbine unfurled the banner of "Chickenville," joined later by Jewish farm communities in Toms River and Farmingdale, n.j. Thereby, the poultry industry was able to absorb Jewish immigrants in the 1930s, and beyond World War ii, with new centers in the Lakewood, n.j. area, Colchester, Manchester, and Danielson, Conn., and Petaluma, Calif. (north of San Francisco). New York's Jewish farmers, especially throughout Sullivan and Ulster counties, have been well represented since the turn of the century in the poultry industry, dairying, vegetables, and resort facilities. In Connecticut, Jewish farmers specialized in dairying also, as well as tobacco and potatoes; others pioneered in the famed potato industry of Aroostook County, Maine.

Some notable contributions stand out: in the area of education, the Baron de Hirsch Agricultural School (Woodbine, n.j.) and the National Farm School (Doylestown, P.A.), both pioneering institutions. Also, Jewish farmers founded cooperatives for joint marketing, especially of poultry and eggs, purchase of feed and fertilizer, insurance, and comprehensive community service programs.

At the end of World War ii, there were about 20,000 Jewish farm families with perhaps fewer than half that number by the late 1960s, mainly because of trends which led to a decline of American agriculture generally down to only five percent of the total population. Jews continued to be represented in all branches of American agriculture, whether citrus in Florida or vegetables in California's Imperial Valley, but the number of Jews in agriculture continued to decline in the last third of the 20^th century as the overall number of Americans engaged in agriculture dropped further to fewer than 2.5 percent.

[Joseph Brandes]

in canada

Canada's vast and underpopulated expanses of fertile land were hardly known to the Jews in czarist Russia and other countries who were seeking asylum. Thus, despite Canada's favorable attitude to immigration, only a small segment of the Jewish emigrants from Europe went to Canada. The first attempt to establish Jewish agricultural settlement in Canada was made in 1884 (after a two year delay mainly due to the government's refusal to assign land for the Jews when they first arrived) when a small group tried to farm 560 acres mear Moosomin, Saskatchewan. Their experiment ended in failure after five years of struggle. A few years later, the Young Men's Hebrew Benevolent Society of Montreal approached Baron de Hirsch to assist Jewish immigrants in Canada, as he did the immigrants in the U.S.A., and soon afterward the *Jewish Colonization Association (ica) established a special Canadian committee for the promotion of agricultural settlement among the Jewish immigrants. With the beginning of large-scale Jewish immigration to Canada in the 1880s some Jews wished to become farmers under the government's homestead policy. Because of the belief that Jews would not make good farmers the government tended to discourage Jewish group-land settlement. Nevertheless between 1884 and 1910 some 17 Jewish farm settlements were started, mostly in western Canada with the help of the Jewish Colonization Association. Among the best known are Oxbow and Wapella (1888), Hirsch (1892), Lipton (1901), Edinbridge and Sonnenfeld (1906), and Rumsey (1908). Five or six of these settlements lasted for half a century or longer.

By 1920 the population in those settlements reached 3,500, while their annual produce totaled over $1,000,000 It has been estimated that Jewish farmers in Canada produced enough wheat in the 1930s to feed the entire population of Canada. Some 200,000 acres were allocated for grain and the farmers' assets were valued at $7,000,000. The Jewish settlers, new arrivals from Ukraine, Romania, or Lithuania, had almost no training in agriculture, nor any knowledge of the environment, so that their achievement was considerable. Despite the extremely difficult climatic conditions in the prairies, which are covered with snow for eight or nine months of the year, the small and isolated communities maintained strong Jewish cultural activity, often using their last means to bring over itinerant Hebrew teachers for the homesteads. Sometimes a teacher would stay with one family for a whole winter. The younger generation went to study at the colleges of the prairie cities of Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Edmonton, and Calgary. In time, they became doctors, lawyers, agronomists, and businessmen and settled in town. When the government imposed immigration quotas, the settlements began to suffer manpower shortages and the aging parents, no longer able to carry the burden of isolation, loneliness, and hard work, gradually joined their children in the cities. Some farm-steads fell into decay and were sold; others are still owned by the descendants of the original settlers. Only individual Jewish families have remained on farms, especially those in the proximity of the cities.

in latin america

Jewish agriculture in Latin America was concentrated in three separate regions during various periods. The first region, the plantation area, was located in the northeast of the continent and in the Caribbean Islands. From the beginning of the 16^th century – only a few years after the discovery of *Brazil – *New Christians were engaged in exploiting the resources of the Brazil tree and exporting its products to Europe. The same group most probably brought the cultivation of sugar from Madeira to Brazil. From that time on, Marranos played a leading role in the development of the sugar cane and sugar refinery industries at Engenhos. In the middle of the 17^th century, after the Dutch rule ended and the Portuguese took over, Jews engaged in the cultivation of sugarcane (and possibly other branches of agriculture) in the Caribbean Islands, especially in the areas of the Guiana that remained under Dutch rule. In Surinam, the memory of this period of Jewish agricultural settlement has been preserved in the name of a village, Joden Savanne.

In the wake of mass immigration by Russian Jews toward the end of the 19^th century, new and large agricultural settlements were established in the grain and beef areas of southeastern Latin America. The widespread development of agriculture in the Argentinean pampas and the large-scale immigration campaign that the government conducted in Europe brought the settlement project of Baron de Hirsch to Argentina. Even though the Hirsch project did not fulfill the expectations of its founder, i.e., to concentrate hundreds of thousands of Jewish settlers in a compact and autonomous area, the total area of the project's agricultural land amounted during its peak period (1925) to 617,468 hectares (1,525,146 acres). The total Jewish agricultural population in the five provinces reached 33,135, of whom 20,382 were farmers and their families and the rest were hired laborers and artisans etc. in 1925 (see *Argentina, Agricultural Settlement).

In 1903 the Jewish Colonization Association (ica) began to develop additional agricultural settlements in Rio Grande do Sul, southern Brazil. One hundred thousand hectares (247,000 acres) were acquired and two settlements were established that encompassed several agricultural centers. This Brazilian project was never consolidated (see *Brazil, Agricultural Settlement). Attempts at agricultural settlement in Uruguay on government-owned land in 1914 and on private land in 1938–39 were also unsuccessful (see *Uruguay).

The persecution of the Jews in Germany during the 1930s and the limitations imposed upon immigration by the governments of Argentina and Brazil led to additional experiments in Jewish agricultural settlement in other geographical areas, mainly in the Andes. Of all these attempts only one, the settlement of Sosua, which was established with the support of the *American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee in the Dominican Republic, partially succeeded.

[Haim Avni]

bibliography:

ereẒ israel:

J. Schwarz, Tevu'ot ha-Areẓ (1900³); M. Zagorodsky, Avodat Avoteinu (1949); B. Cizik, Oẓar ha-Ẓemaḥim (1952); Alon, Toledot; S.D. Jaffe, Ha-Ḥakla'ut ha-Ivrit ha-Kedumah be-Ereẓ Yisrael (1959); S. Hurwitz, Torat ha-Sadeh, 3 (1959); Y. Feliks, Olam ha-Zome'aḥ ha-Mikra'i (1968); idem, Ha-Ḥakla'ut be-Ereẓ Yisrael bi-Tekufat ha-Mishnah ve-ha-Talmud (1963), incl. bibl.; idem, Kilei Zera'im ve-Harkavah (1967); idem, in: Sefer ha-Emek (1957), 123–33; Aharoni, ibid., 107–14; Yeivin, ibid., 115–22; H. Vogelstein, Die Landwirtschaft in der Zeit der Mischna (1894); Krauss, Tal Arch 2 (1911); Loew, Flora; Dalman, Arbeit; A.L.E. Moldenke, Plants of the Bible (1952). add. bibliography : A. Horowitz, "Pollen: Key to Negev Climate in Prehistoric Times," in: iln, 4 (1978–79), 62–63; A. Horowitz, The Quaternary of Israel. (1979); U. Baruch, "The Late Holocene Vegetational History of Lake Kinneret (Sea of Galilee), Israel," in: Paleorient, 12 (1986), 37–48; R. Gophna, N. Liphshitz, and S. Lev-Yadun, "Man's Impact on the Natural Vegetation of the Central Coastal Plain of Israel during the Chalcolithic Period and the Bronze Age," in: Tel Aviv, 13–14 (1986–87), 71–84; Y. Weisel, N. Liphschitz, and S. Lev-Yadun, "Flora in Ancient Eretz-Israel," in: A. Kasher et al. (eds.), Man and Land in Eretz – Israel in Antiquity. (1986); A. Rosen, "Environmental Change and Settlement at Tel Lachish, Israel," in: basor, 263 (1986), 55–60; A. Rosen, Cities of Clay: The Geoarchaeology of Tells. (1986); idem, "Phytolith Studies at Shiqmim," in: T.E. Levi (ed.), Shiqmim I: Studies Concerning Chalcolithic Societies in the Northern Negev Desert, Israel (1982–1984). bar International Series (1987), 243–49; D. Zohary and M. Hopf, Domestication of Plants in the Old World (1988); I. Drori and A. Horowitz, "Tel Lachish: Environment and Subsistence During the Middle Bronze, Late Bronze and Iron Age," Tel Aviv, 15–16 (1988–89), 206–11; I. Rovner, "Fine-Tuning Floral History with Plant Poal Phytolith Analysis," in: W.M. Kelso and R. Most (eds.), Earth Patterns: Essays in Landscape Archaeology (1990), 297–308; U. Baruch, "Palynological Evidence for Human Impact Upon the Flora of the Land of Israel in Antiquity," Qadmoniot, 27 (1994), 47–63. babylon: J. Newman, Agricultural Life of the Jews in Babylonia (1933), 136–40. middle ages: S.D. Goitein, A Mediterranean Society, 1 (1967), 116–27, 425–30; G. Caro, Sozialund Wirtschaftsgeschichte der Juden im Mittelalter und der Neuzeit, 2 vols. (1920–24); Ashtor, Korot; Baer, Spain; Baron, Social; B. Blumenkranz, Juifs et Chretiens dans le monde occidental (1960); H.Z. Hirschberg, Yisrael be-Arav (1946); Hirschberg, Afrikah; A. Milano, Vicende economiche degli Ebret nell Italia meridionale ed insulare durante il Medioevo (1954); Neuman, Spain; S. Saige, Les Juifs du Languedoc (1881); O. Stobbe, Die Juden in Deutschland (1866). trade in agricultural products: Baer, Spain, index, s.v. Commerce; G. Caro, Sozial-und Wirtschaftsgeschichte der Juden im Mittelalter und in der Neuzeit, 2 vols. (1908–20); Kosover, in: yivo Bleter, 12 (1937), 533–45; I. Schipper (ed.), Dziee handlu źydowskiego na ziemiach polskich (1938); Roth, England, 73, 115; H.G. Richardson, English Jewry under Angevin Kings (1960), index, s.v. Corn dealing: S.D. Goitein, A Mediterranean Society (1967), 116–26, 265. modern europe: V. Niktin, Yevreyskiya poseleniya severo i yugozapadnogo kraya (1894); Yevreyskoye kolonizatsionnoye obshchestvo, Sbornik ob ekonomicheskom polozheniyu Yevreyev v Rossii (1904); S.Y. Borovoi, Yevreyskaya zemledelcheskaya kolonizatsiya v staroy Rossii (1928); B. Brutzkus, Di Yidishe Landvirtshaft in Mizrakh-Erope (1926); Jewish Agricultural Society, Der Yidisher Landvirt (1932–39); S. Tapuach, in: yivo Bleter, 10 (1936), 19–25; idem, in: Przeglǎd Socjologiczny; 5 (1937); I. Schipper et al. (eds.), Żydzi w Polsce odrodzone, 2 vols. (1932–33), index; J. Babicki, Yidishe Landvirtshaft in Stanislaver Voyevodshaft (1948²); idem, in: Yidishe Ekonomik, 1–3 (1937–39); L. Babicki, in: Sprawy Narodowościowe, no. 4–5 (1932); Bartis, in: Zion. 32 (1967), 46–75; A. Tartakower, Megillat ha-Hityashevut (1958); Kh. Schmeruk, Ha-Kibbutz ha-Yehudi ve-ha-Hityashevut ha-Ḥakla'it be-Byelorusyah ha-Sovyetit 1918–32 (1961); Ḥakla'im Yehudim be-Arvot Rusyah (1965). united states: H.J. Levine and B. Miller, American Jewish Farmer in Changing Times (1966); E. Lifshutz, in: ajhsq, 56 (1966), 151–62. canada: Belkin, in: A.D. Hart (ed.), Jew in Canada (1926); Sack,ibid.; A. Rhinewine, Looking Back a Century (1932); L. Rosenberg, Agriculture in Western Canada (1932); idem, Canada's Jews (1939); A.A. Chiel, Jewish Experiences in Early Manitoba (1955); idem, Jews in Manitoba (1961).

Encyclopaedia Judaica Gibson, Shimon; Feliks, Jehuda; Rabinowitz, Louis; Goldberg, Jacob; Tapuach, Shimshon; Brandes, Joseph; Avni, Haim

Agriculture

views updated May 23 2018

Agriculture

Latin America's variety of habitats—from polar to tropical climates, deserts to rain forests, highly fertile plains to shallow-soil high-altitude slopes and valleys—has given rise to diverse styles of agriculture. Highly developed at the time of the European invasions, they varied greatly in productivity, technology, and type of land tenure. Lack of easy transport kept long-distance trade limited to commodities of high value. Staple agricultural production thus needed to supply most required commodities within circumscribed regions of exchange.

PRE-COLUMBIAN FOUNDATIONS

Indigenous American civilizations accomplished the domestication of what would become major staple food and industrial crops relatively early: squash by 8000 bce, the common bean by 5500 bce, maize by c. 5000 bce, yam and manioc in the fifth millenium bce, quinoa—the protein-rich high-altitude Andean grain—by c. 3000 bce, potato and cotton by ca. 2000 bce, and cocoa no later than 200 ce. Contradicting older notions of an "agricultural revolution" in the Americas, recent scholarship has shown that the transition from foraging to sedentary farming proceeded gradually. Sedentary agricultural villages depending overwhelmingly on domesticated crops for their sustenance became widespread in highland Mesoamerica and the Andes, and along parts of the Gulf and Pacific coasts of Peru, only during the second millennium bce. They appeared towards the middle or end of the first millennium in the Greater Antilles, the Yucatan peninsula, and parts of the lower Amazon River Valley, around Santarem. In parts of the Southern Cone, Amazon and Orinoco basins, northern Mexico, lower Central America and coastal areas around the north and east of South America, people continued to rely primarily on foraging or fishing until the European invasions. Central Andean llamas and alpacas were the only large mammals in the Americas domesticated (around 1000 bce) before the European invasions, providing meat, wool, leather, and furs as well as serving as pack animals for transport.

Agricultural technologies changed with population densities, social complexity, and structures of rule; at times new crops and technologies (e.g., the introduction of irrigation on the Peruvian coast) preceded changes in social and political structures. Semitropical and tropical lowland agriculturalists used swidden, or slash-and-burn, methods to create fields for farming, for instance milpa-style production among lowland Maya: clearing of forests through extended family labor, planting of maize and complementary crops for three to five years, abandonment of the original clearing, and starting the process again with a new clearing, a production process with high productivity adequate for regions of low population density. With greater population densities, lowland cultures raised staple crop productivity through ridged fields (camellones), swamp drainage, and, in the Greater Antilles, mounds (conucos). With increasing population densities and state control of labor, highland cultures guarded against irregular seasonal rainfalls through a variety of irrigation and water control systems (dams, canals, ridged fields, terraces). Chinampas—fields along lakeshores built through drainage canals and continuous addition of lake sediments and decomposing algae as topsoil—were developed in the Valley of Mexico during the late pre-Columbian era (c. 1350 ce). The most productive agricultural complex in the Americas, it allowed continuous planting with three crops per year. Pre-Columbian tools for fieldwork and processing were mostly made from wood or stone, except in the Andean region, where digging sticks (chaki taqllas) had narrow blade tips made from copper alloys; iron tools were unknown.

Economic specialization, allowing increased regional and long-distance trade, grew in importance where socially stratified state structures became prominent, from around 200 bce, especially in Mesoamerica (Teotihuacan, the Maya city-states) and the central Andes (the Mochica and Tiwanaku) until reaching their highest level in the Aztec and Inca empires during the last century before the European invasions. Specialized craft production of agricultural, livestock, or fishery-derived goods included spinning and weaving, net-making, tanning, papermaking, charcoal production, alcohol production (Mexican pulque, made from the maguey plant; Andean chicha, a fermented maize beverage), and drying of fish, meat (Andean charki), and potatoes (Andean chuñu). The most elaborate craft production was carried out on an industrial scale in enclosed workshops controlled by lords and associated with objects central for ritual and prestige—the spinning of fine cloth in the Andes, feather-working in Mesoamerica.

Systems of distribution and redistribution ranged from reciprocal exchange to trade by specialists. Communities of farmers exchanged goods and labor with neighboring communities, with their lords, and at times with distant producers of special products they lacked themselves. Such networks of exchange served both to supply scarce goods and to reinforce longstanding hierarchical or horizontal relationships. Lords redistributed food and other surplus agricultural commodities from alcohol to cloth at ceremonial occasions or during periods of food shortages, both to buttress their claims to authority and as a measure of social control; the most celebrated case of such redistribution concerns the Inca polity that maintained massive supplies of staple foods and other commodities in thousands of small storage towers dispersed in regional administrative centers throughout its vast territories. In Mesoamerica markets (tianguis) and state-privileged merchants (pochteca) developed gradually from the beginning of the Common Era. Even staple goods may have been exchanged through such markets among people living in different climatic zones. It has long been thought that in the Andes exchange was largely carried out among producers of the same ethnic group connecting different vertically arranged production zones, from the coast to the frigid altiplano. Evidence is mounting, however, that in the northern regions of the Inca territories specialized autonomous traders also connected producers of different ethnic origins. Long-distance trade was everywhere limited to high-value items usually linked to ceremonial functions of lords. Such privileged high-value networks of exchange could stretch over hundreds and at times even thousands of kilometers. For example, the Buriticá chiefdom (in the Cauca-Patía depression of Colombia) traded gold, emeralds, fish, salt, textiles and slaves throughout northern South America and Central America. While much of the long-distance trade relied on human carriers (such as the hereditary tlamemes in the Aztec empire), large dugouts and coastal rafts (which became very elaborate along the South American Pacific coast by the late post-Classic period) introduced economies of scale to long-distance trade; canoes could carry forty times as much as a human porter, and the large ocean-going Inkaic rafts even more. Specialized drivers of llama caravans facilitated the integration of large-scale late post-classical political economies in the central Andes and provided an impetus for the 25,000-kilometer Inca road system, not matched until the twentieth century. In areas of high population density, barter or market exchange of agricultural commodities was thus growing during the last centuries before the European invasions.

Access to resources, from croplands and pastures to water, fisheries, salt deposits, and mines during the early phases of agriculture was mediated through kinship and local lords, and during the Classic and post-Classic eras increasingly through regional chiefs and paramount lords or states, depending on the complexity of social and political organization. In kin-based communities as the Andean ayllu and those of the Tupis along the coast of Brazil, access to resources depended on gender-stratified participation in common labor tasks, from clearing fields for planting, to maintaining drainage and irrigation canals, and keeping the tidal area mangrove forests well irrigated for the staple shellfish colonies. While the right to cultivate croplands may have passed within the same family from generation to generation, such lands would belong to the entire kin group, and be subject to redistribution. The community set aside specified land and labor resources for the lord, in exchange for his services to the community. In the Aztec realms some of the land belonged directly to lords and nobles, and they worked it directly, as their own private estates. Farming communities received usage rights to land from the lords. In the Inca empire land held quasi-privately close to the capital of Cuzco by lineages of the royal family were just beginning to appear at the moment of Pizarro's invasion. But the state held some of the most fertile lands—such as the Cochabamba valley (in present-day Bolivia)—for the production of staple crops through corvée labor (mitimaes) drawn from far-flung ethnic groups. Thus by the late post-Classical period land tenure regimes had become highly diversified in the Americas, although the great majority of farmers continued to work the land in kin-based communities. In regions with complex state structures, by the late Classic period farming communities had become accustomed to paying tribute to their paramount lords or kings, either in the form of commodities or of labor.

INVASION AND COLONIALISM, 1500–1750

The European invasions and colonization of the Americas after 1492 initially affected agriculture through five principal processes: (1) the devastating collapse of indigenous populations; (2) the introduction of new crops and types of livestock; (3) the introduction of new agricultural tools and technologies; (4) the opening of new markets for agricultural and livestock products; and (5) new legal and regulatory frameworks for land tenure and labor. While in some areas of Latin America the transformation of agriculture was swift, in many regions it occurred more gradually or only centuries after the initial European invasion.

The unprecedented demographic catastrophe that affected most areas in the Americas after coming into contact with Europeans—it is estimated that as much as 90 percent of indigenous populations were wiped out by disease or violence in core regions such as central Mexico, parts of the Andes, and coastal regions elsewhere within 100 years of invasion and conquest—necessarily had a massive impact on colonial agriculture. Production of food crops by indigenous farmers declined, and much land previously farmed was abandoned, focusing production on the most fertile plots. In some regions intensively farmed before 1492 this allowed recovery of soil fertility and regrowth of forest. A recent environmental history suggests that Latin America was more heavily forested in 1800 than in 1500, not unlike parts of Western Europe during the century after the onset of bubonic plague around 1350.

American landscapes were transformed by the Mediterranean biota the Iberians brought with them. One historian ascribes the success of the colonial enterprise to the ecological similarity of the early core regions of Iberian colonization to their Mediterranean homelands; these regions were thus well suited to produce the range of food crops and livestock species to which the Iberians were accustomed. The Spaniards flourished in the Mexican highlands and the central Andes because these regi-ons were perfect for planting wheat, olive trees, and vineyards, and offered virgin grasslands for cattle, horses and donkeys, and goats and sheep. The tropical coast of Brazil became a successful colony for the Portuguese because the region had the perfect climate and soils for planting sugar cane, which the Portuguese had previously brought to the Atlantic islands. The most drastic environmental changes resulted from European livestock species that multiplied exponentially in favorable American habitats. Horses and especially cattle counted in the millions a few decades after being introduced into virgin grasslands in northern Mexico, the llanos of the Orinoco River (Venezuela) and the fertile pampas of the River Plate (Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay), and many herds turned feral. At a minimum intense grazing changed the configuration of grasses in these regions, and at worst overgrazing led to growing soil erosion and aridity. In the core settlement zones livestock seriously threatened the crop production of indigenous farmers; in Cuba and Hispaniola large herds of feral pigs dug up the Arawaks' root crops (like manioc), contributing to the deadly combination of malnutrition and epidemics that virtually wiped out the islands' native populations within fifty years after Columbus's arrival. In central Mexico sheep herds destroyed maize fields of indigenous farming communities. Nevertheless, indigenous farmers more readily adapted to the husbandry of European animals than to planting European food crops, especially wheat.

The introduction of iron tools, especially iron-tipped ploughs, hoes as well as machetes, increased per capita productivity of Latin American agriculture during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. So did the adoption of draft and transport animals. In the Andes llamas were replaced by mules as a major form of transport only after the mid-seventeenth century, and in southern Mesoamerica—especially Guatemala and Chiapas—porters continued to be used as cheap corvée labor for transporting agricultural and other commodities for much of the colonial period. But the increasing use of mules in most of Latin America lowered transport costs and allowed longer distance marketing for staple crops. European processing technologies such as water- or animal-driven mills for grains, presses for sugarcane, distilleries for alcohol, and large looms for weaving cotton and wool thread, began the industrialization of rural enterprises. But they required such large outlays of capital that only the wealthiest Spanish or Portuguese landholders could afford them, thus contributing to a widening stratification of farm incomes. While Iberians introduced some new irrigation technologies (such as the animal-driven noria, a kind of water pump), regions with complex pre-Columbian civilizations saw a deterioration of irrigation systems at least until the eighteenth century (in some areas until 1900). Overall the early effect of European colonization on agricultural productivity was mixed and regionally varied. The concentration on the most fertile croplands, the introduction of iron farm tools and draft and transport animals all tended to increase per capita productivity. However, per hectare productivity may have declined, especially in the production of food crops for local consumption in the regions most densely populated during the pre-Hispanic period, as European grains produced lower hectare yields than American staples such as maize and potatoes. Indigenous farmers also faced damages to crops from roaming livestock herds, and some highly productive fields were abandoned due to the decay of pre-Columbian irrigation systems.

The Iberians explored and settled the Americas with the hope of new trade routes and opportunities for commercializing high-value commodities. Due to exorbitant transatlantic transport costs, the range of American agricultural products that could be profitably marketed in Europe, Africa or, after 1700, Anglo-America remained limited until late in the colonial period. It included New World products such as timber (from the Caribbean coast of Central America and Brazil), dyestuffs (indigo and cochineal from southern Mexico and Central America), cocoa (from Central America and later Ecuador and Venezuela), tobacco (from Cuba, Mexico and Brazil), and some spices and herbs. But by far the most important agricultural product sold in Europe was sugar. Between the 1540s and 1690s, it was the driving force for the settlement of the coastal territories making up most of Brazil until that time. Brazil became the first modern plantation colony thriving on sugar exports and transforming colonial society through the massive and sustained importation of enslaved Africans, more than three million between the early sixteenth century and the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade in the 1850s. The number of sugar mills in Brazil rose from sixty in 1570 to 350 in 1629, and production from 6,000 tons annually in 1580 to as much 22,000 tons during the 1620s, most of which was exported to Europe. Thereafter Brazilian production stagnated until the late eighteenth century, due to the twenty-five-year Dutch occupation of the northeastern captaincy of Pernambuco (1630–1654), and the establishment of more efficient sugar plantations in the Dutch, French, and British Caribbean during the second half of the seventeenth century. Before the late colonial era, the bulk of Spanish American sugar production—from Michoacán in Mexico, to the Cauca valley in Colo-mbia, the coast of Peru and Tucumán in Argentina—was marketed regionally within the Americas, unable to compete with Brazilian or non-Spanish Caribbean sugar in European markets because of lower productivity and higher labor and transportation costs.

Most food crops and livestock products produced in Latin America were marketed locally or regionally before the late colonial period. Due to declining transportation costs and high regional prices driven by the Mexican and Andean silver export complexes, the core regions of the Spanish empire sustained increasing long-distance trade even in staple foods. This fostered a degree of regional specialization in commercial crops and livestock products. In Spanish South America, an integrated regional "Andean space" grew around the skyrocketing demand for agricultural crafts and industrial goods in the central silver mining and processing city of Potosí (Bolivia), the largest city in the Western hemisphere for a few decades in the early seventeenth century (140,000 people during the 1620s, despite the 4000-meter altitude). Cór-doba (central Argentina) supplied mules, Chile's central valley and the Cochabamba Valley (Bolivia) wheat, Paraguay yerba mate (herbal tea), the valleys around Cuzco (Peru) maize and sugar, Arequipa (Peru) wine and brandy, Piura (northern Peruvian coast) tallow and goatskins, Quito (Ecuador) woolen cloth. Similar flows existed between central and western Mexico (the agricultural and craft production zones between Puebla and Guadalajara) and the northern mining centers of Zacatecas and San Luis Potosí. Major administrative and commercial cities, from the viceregal capitals of Lima and Mexico City on down, also provided markets that drew supplies at times from hundreds of kilometers away. But smaller provincial towns distant from commercial arteries had a smaller food supply area, and many staple commodities in more isolated regions were traded only locally. Most farmers—from squatter on a few hectares to plantation owners—sought to diminish monetary expenditures for inputs and household consumption by producing a broad range of crops and livestock products. But from the early colonial period most farmers also sought to produce a marketable surplus in at least one crop or livestock product for commercial profit or to defray unavoidable monetary expenses, including crown and church taxes and fees. This was true also for the majority of indigenous farmers. Part of their farm surpluses were extracted through colonial administrative fiat, mostly in the form of crops or labor; first through the encomienda system (in which payment to Spaniards was a duty of vassalage the Spanish king), later as tributo (the semiannual head tax levied on adult indigenous men) or for the reparto de bienes (the forced distribution of goods in a commercial scheme instituted in predominantly indigenous provinces by the corregidores, the highest provincial-level crown officers). The incorporation of indigenous farmers into self-regulating markets was a drawn-out process, not fully completed until the early 2000s, proceeding at different rates in different places depending on the social position of the farmers, on the region, and on the specific commodities. Indigenous farmers also maintained some of the pre-Hispanic long-distance barter networks between communities outside the control of Hispanicized traders.

As the supply of commodities and labor directly from indigenous communities diminished as a result of the population collapse, and colonists recognized the commercial opportunities for agriculture in the American colonies, Spanish and Portuguese settlers gradually developed their own farms based on royal land grants, de facto appropriations of indigenous lands, judicial settlements (composiciónes), and notarized sales contracts. By the late sixteenth century this gave rise to the hacienda (fazenda in Brazil), the Latin American manorial estate that would prove to be—through multiple transformations—one of the most durable rural institutions. In many parts of Latin America it reached its apex only during the early twentieth century and entered terminal crisis during the mid-twentieth century. The defining feature of the hacienda was that it had a resident labor force and a settlement nucleus, at times with its own chapel. More than a large farm, it was a social unit over whose workers the owner exercised considerable informal, at time quasi-legal power. Haciendas varied tremendously in size, type of labor force, product mix, capital investment, and commercialization of goods. The largest haciendas, such as some of the livestock ranches in northern Mexico, or the sertão (semi-arid grasslands) of northeastern Brazil, could encompass several hundred thousand hectares with more than 500 resident laborers and their families, while on the smallest estates of fifty to one hundred hectares the owner might work alongside two or three labor tenants (sharecroppers) or slaves, sowing and harvesting grains, tobacco, or tubers.

In lowland areas such as the coast of Brazil, the Caribbean, the Gulf coast of Mexico, the Caribbean coast of Colombia and Venezuela, and the Pacific coast of Peru and Ecuador, the majority of estates came to rely on African slave labor. Slaves often constituted their single largest capital investment. Focusing on commercial products as sugar, tobacco, cocoa, and wine, such haciendas—like the analogous Anglo-American plantations—were more highly capitalized than the average cereal- or livestock-producing hacienda in the Mesoamerican and Andean highlands. For their labor force these relied predominantly on labor tenants (called peones acasil-lados, colonos, yanaconas, or inquilinos in different areas), tenants, and day laborers from adjacent communities and villages of independent farmers, as well as corvée laborers drafted by local authorities. In the large haciendas of either type, complex social hierarchies developed, between skilled and unskilled, permanent and temporary workers, slave and free. Even most of the highly capitalized haciendas, such as sugar plantations, dedicated only a minor share of their land to their commercial crops, with the rest used for food production, livestock pastures, and woodlands. In contrast to Caribbean slave plantations, Brazil's sugar engenhos (fazendas with their own sugar mills) often provided provisioning grounds for their slaves, akin to the garden plots granted to labor tenants on highland haciendas.

Given cyclical harvest crises, most haciendas—except for the most efficiently managed slave plantations—generated relatively low long-term average revenues (perhaps about 5 percent of the value of movable and immovable property). Startup capital and cash to weather crises was transferred from family fortunes generated in mining or commerce, as members of Latin America's colonial creole elite sought to buttress their social power and standing by becoming large landholders. Various organizations of the Catholic Church provided long-term loans to the more powerful hacendado families. By the late colonial period the Church had become the largest landholder in many parts of Latin America.

The majority of Latin America's rural population during the colonial era lived and worked outside of manorial estates or plantations. Especially in areas with rapidly growing mestizo populations, there developed a fluid sector of independent small and middling farmers and ranchers, such as the wheat-growing rancheros of Mexico's bajío (around León), the grain farmers of Antioquia (Colombia), and Brazil's lavradores de cana (cane farmers without a sugar mill) and casave (cassava or manioc) farmers. Some of them aspired to become hacendados themselves while others only managed to eke out a poor livelihood for their family. Many small farmers depended on powerful hacendados or sugar planters to process their crops and on local traders for small cash advances before the harvest.

From the late sixteenth century both the Spanish and Portuguese crowns established protective policies for the indigenous populations of their American colonies, often honored in the breach. In order to sustain an indigenous labor force and base of taxation, the crown sought to protect communal lands from neighboring Iberian and mestizo landholders. Indigenous communities adopted some aspects of European farming, property relations, and cultural-political structures while insisting on their autonomy and their land, often through court battles and at times through rebellions. While regular land redistribution schemes continued in many highland communities from central Mexico to the Andes, internal social differentiation increased. More affluent indigenous farmers began to own their own land alongside their redistribution plots, and in some regions caciques (indigenous headmen) acquired large landholdings and operated them as haciendas. Communal farmers focused on producing such traditional foodstuffs as maize, cassava, potatoes, and livestock products, garnering lower prices in urban markets than European foodstuffs and transatlantic trade goods such as sugar. Where necessary for the production of transatlantic trade goods, such as cochineal in Oaxaca, local crown authorities administered prices and payment schedules.

THE TRANSITION PERIOD, 1750–1850

The late colonial and early post-independence eras of Latin America witnessed varying and at times countervailing trends in agriculture. Some regions that had been marginal during the earlier colonial era saw sustained growth of agricultural production and trade, while others could not sustain their growth through the era of Napoleonic wars. The period saw rapid shifts in access to overseas markets and transport costs due to foreign wars, revolutions and wars of independence, and changing regulatory frameworks. Government policies on property and labor shifted slowly for most of this transition century until undergoing massive liberal reforms during the third quarter of the nineteenth century.

Transatlantic trade with the Iberian peninsula more than doubled between the early 1770s and mid-1790s, and agricultural goods, especially from the east coast of Latin America (from the River Plate in the south to Cuba in the north), contributed with growing exports of leather, sugar, tobacco, cocoa, indigo, cochineal, and cotton. Decreasing transatlantic transport costs, thanks to larger and faster ships, heightened demand in Western Europe (e.g., for dyestuffs and cotton for the burgeoning textile industry). Direct legal access to more ports by foreign shipping (as in Buenos Aires) and increased supply of slave labor for sugar production (as in Cuba after the brief 1762 British occupation of Havana) all fueled this growth of exports.

Agricultural production for domestic consumption had also grown significantly in many areas of Spanish America for much of the eighteenth century, in tandem with sustained population increases, growing urban populations, and peak silver output in the last quarter of the century. In Mexico demand outpaced food production between the 1760s and 1780s, leading to hunger crises during the 1780s. Several regions saw Malthusian cycles: growing production allowing population growth until a ceiling was reached and mortality rates rose sharply through harvest failures and disease, which in turn lowered food prices and allowed populations to rise again. The growth of agricultural production during the eighteenth century was the result of increasing acreage under the plow (at times diminishing livestock herds or pushing them further from population centers, as in Chile), and some measures of internal colonization such as irrigation and swamp drainage were undertaken. But there is little evidence for widespread productivity increases in agriculture during this era. Spanish and Portuguese policies favored mineral production while increasing sales taxes for agricultural and crafts production. Insufficient improvements of roads may also have been a bottleneck for many agricultural regions. The establishment of a Spanish royal monopoly on the production and sale of tobacco products in various regions during the 1760s and 1770s significantly raised public revenues and at least in Mexico created an important factory sector, but at the same time inhibited the growth of tobacco production.

Prices for food crops and livestock products increased again during the era of the revolutions of independence (1810–1825) in many parts of Latin America, due to disruption of supplies and scarcity of transport animals. Unable to repay at times substantial mortgages on their land, contracted over decades with the Church, many hacendados were forced to sell their estates. In highland regions of Mesoamerica and the Andes small farmers, including those in indigenous communities, weathered these crises better, and entered a phase of relative stability—with diminished conflicts with neighboring haciendas—until about mid-century.

The independence of mainland Latin America by 1825 led to direct trading relationships with the major powers of Western Europe and the United States, but for the majority of the new republics did not lead to a transformation or growth of their agricultural sector. Commodity prices remained low from the mid-1820s through the late 1840s, and labor regimes and other agrarian institutions as well as farm productivity did not change substantially. Exceptions to this rule were Argentina and Uruguay, whose exports of livestock products, begun during the last decades of the eighteenth century, continued to grow: dried meat for slave populations in Brazil and the United States, and, after independence, sheep wool exports to the U.K. and the United States. This rapid growth transformed the landscape of the humid pampas around Buenos Aires, first with a change from grain fields to livestock pastures, and from 1831, the rapid expansion of livestock estancias into territory previously held by the autonomous groups of indigenous people. Another exception concerned the early exportation of coffee from Brazil, Venezuela, and Costa Rica during the decades after independence, produced on farms of widely different sizes and labor regimes: from slave-based large fazendas in Rio de Janeiro province to small farms controlled by highly capitalized coffee processors and traders in Costa Rica's central valley.

Beginning in the 1790s both Brazil and Cuba were rapidly expanding their sugar production and exports, benefiting economically from the Haitian revolution of 1791 that eliminated the largest sugar producer of the late eighteenth century. The spectacular growth of sugar production in Brazil faltered after mid-century, due to higher prices for slaves in the coffee-growing region than in the northeast sugar zone (a circumstance that led to the establishment of an internal slave trade) and the failure of engenho owners to invest in more productive processing technology, a trend reversed only in the last third of the nineteenth century. Cuba was able to sustain an even more spectacular increase of sugar production, based on massive slave imports during the first half of the nineteenth century, additional sources of imported regimented labor thereafter (Chinese "coolies"), and heavy investment in transport and cane processing technology first by Spanish, and after mid-century, U.S., capital. At the cost of environmental degradation (cutting the forests as fuel for the mills) and increasing social polarization, Cuba became the largest world producer of sugar by the 1840s.

Reforms of the property and labor regimes established during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries proceeded haltingly before the mid-nineteenth century. Spain's Bourbon reformers began to weaken the protective policies for indigenous communities since about 1730. Aiming to achieve a more "rational" land tenure regime and under pressure from Hispanicized landholders to open fertile lands close to markets, colonial administrators no longer recognized the historical titles of indigenous communities in Mesoamerica and the Andes. Instead they calculated land requirements per family in the redistribution lands, and sold off "excess lands" to Hispanicized farmers (communal lands were legally considered crown lands held by indigenous farmers in usufruct). At least in the Andes, this was one of the contributing factors to a rising tide of rural rebellions between 1730 and 1780, and the policy was curtailed as politically destabilizing thereafter.

During the 1820s, the early years after independence, some Spanish American republics passed laws disestablishing communal landholdings. But such laws remained without major effect before the second half of the nineteenth century, because pressure on indigenous land was then low, and states in Mesoamerica and the Andes found ethnic communal organizations still indispensable for fiscal and administrative purposes. In contrast to some of the era's European liberal agrarian reform laws, the Latin American laws never touched the property and judicial structures of the manorial estate, and, with minor exceptions, began regulating private rural labor regimes only after mid-century. Colonial corvée labor systems (mita, repartimiento) were outlawed, but often kept functioning informally on the local level.

INDUSTRIALIZED AGRICULTURE AND THE EXPORT TRADE, 1850–1980

Latin American agriculture underwent more profound changes between the late nineteenth and late twentieth centuries than at any time since the European invasions. The motors of that change were growth and migration of populations, the transport "revolution," productivity gains and increasing capital investments, and rapidly shifting agrarian policies and regulatory frameworks regarding property, labor, and trade. The end result of these processes was the diminution of agriculture as a share of GNP and of the proportion of the economically active population devoted to it, and simultaneously a widening gap between capital-intensive and traditional farms and between income levels in the countryside and in the cities.

Latin America's population grew from around thirty million in 1850 to 469 million in 1995, the result of both natural population growth and immigration. Growth peaked in most countries during the 1960s, at over 2 percent annually for the entire region (in some countries, such as Costa Rica, as high as 3.5 percent). It declined to around 1.5 percent by 2000 (ranging from 0.4 percent in Cuba to 2.8 percent in Bolivia). Parallel to overall population growth, Latin Americans began to migrate at an accelerating clip, both between rural areas and from the countryside to the city (aside from several waves of emigration abroad). By the late twentieth century the ratio between Latin America's rural and urban population was just about reversed from a century earlier: from roughly 80:20 in the 1870s to 30:70 by the 1980s (and 25:75 in 2007). Yet the absolute number of people living in the countryside has continued to grow in the region as a whole, although there are now some rural districts and entire provinces whose population has begun to decline in absolute terms. While capital-intensive agriculture initially was overwhelmingly geared towards export markets, the growth of ever larger urban markets slowly broadened productivity gains and capital investment also in domestic-use agriculture (DUA).

The transport revolution—the introduction of steamships and railroads—of the second half of the nineteenth century allowed a growing range of Latin American crops and livestock products to be profitably marketed overseas. Freight rates between Latin America and the U.K. declined by roughly 50 percent between 1860 and 1900. As late as 1865, transporting wool by llama from a hacienda in the Peruvian altiplano for 300 kilometers to the Pacific port of Islay could take longer than the steamship voyage from Islay to Liverpool; after the completion of the railroad line from Mollendo to the northern altiplano in 1876, it took three days to convey the wool from hacienda to port. Specialized transportation technologies such as the United Fruit Company's steamers with cooled cargo compartments for bananas, and the steamers that took chilled beef from Buenos Aires to London, were vital for satisfying the increased demand for Latin American agricultural products in Europe and the United States. The growth of trucking and road construction since the 1920s further lowered transport costs for rural producers by extending the network of modern transport into many localities where the railroad had never reached; the truck also facilitated rural—urban travel for people and thus provided the means for rapidly rising rates of migration after 1950.

In aggregate quantitative terms, the growth of export volumes between the 1850s and World War I was impressive in Latin America. Yet growth varied greatly from country to country and region to region, and its impact on economic development has been highly controversial. Per capita export values grew fourfold for all of Latin America between 1850 and 1912, and, except for three Andean nations and Mexico (with strong mining sectors rivaling or surpassing agro-exports), this was mostly due to crops and livestock products. In Argentina per capita export earnings increased more than sixfold between 1850 and 1912, and export agriculture—principally cereals and meat—literally transformed the nation, by drawing more than three million immigrants, fostering the growth of major cities as commercial entrepots and processing points for agricultural products, building Latin America's largest railroad network, and bringing the land under intense cultivation or fencing it for improved livestock raising. For countries like Mexico and Honduras, growth of agricultural exports had less positive impacts. Links to other sectors of the economy were minimal in some export regions—such as the henequen (rope fiber) production in Yucatan or the coastal banana zone around San Pedro de Zulas. In many agricultural export complexes productivity increases were greatest in processing—e.g. Cuba's modern sugar centrales (refineries), or Costa Rica's beneficios (hulling and drying facilities) for coffee beans, and less impressive in field operations.

Many agro-export complexes were destructive to their environment: use of fertilizers remained low, soils eroded, and in some areas—as on São Paulo's coffee frontier—farms relocated after some years, clearing forested virgin lands for new coffee groves, and leaving the exhausted lands for less intensive uses, such as livestock pasture. This began to be reversed in some regions after 1930, when agricultural extension services proliferated, and fertilizers were used more widely. Still, some Latin American commercial agricultural complexes have remained highly destructive throughout the twentieth century, such as the cotton growing areas along the Pacific coast of Guatemala during the 1950s and 1960s through the use of dangerous herbicides and insecticides, or the expanding cattle ranching and soybean farming industries in the Amazon basin since the 1970s through the cutting down of the rainforest.

Capital for investment in agro-export complexes came from traditional national sources (trade and mining), from foreign export merchants and from a fledgling banking system that often favored short-term crop loans over long-term loans for industrial investment. From the 1860s, foreign capital flowed into some strategic agro-export sectors: U.S. corporate investment in Cuban sugar and most Caribbean banana complexes, European immigrants' investments in coffee fincas in Central America and Peru's large north coast sugar plantations. But in contrast to other primary resources, such as petroleum and minerals, the major part of modernizing crop and livestock production for export remained under the control of Latin American entrepreneurs.

Domestic-use agriculture experienced much less capital investment before 1930, and thus productivity grew minimally if at all in this sector. Increased production was achieved mostly through colonization projects, often involving violent expropriation of lands previously claimed by indigenous ethnic groups such as the Yaqui in Sonora, Mexico, or the Mapuche in southern Chile. Highland cereal and livestock haciendas in the old core regions of the Spanish Empire (central and southern Mexico, Guatemala, and the central Andes) also grew rapidly at the expense of indigenous communities. The indigenous peoples of Latin America probably lost more land to large landholders and individual ranchero family farmers between 1850 and 1950 than during the entire colonial period. In any case, the increase in production of staple crops through increased acreage was insufficient to guarantee adequate food supplies for Latin America's bourgeoning urban population after the 1880s; many countries became net importers of food crops.

The transition from peonage and slavery to wage labor in agriculture was slow in most areas, often not completed before the mid-twentieth century. It depended on the availability of ample pools of labor—achieved only after major increases in the population of land-poor or landless rural dwellers and growing migrant labor streams—or, in rare instances, on relatively flat rural social hierarchies. In the central valley of Costa Rica or the fertile pampas of Argentina, both without strong traditions of servile labor, wage labor became the norm as early as the mid-nineteenth century. After the abolition of slavery in Brazil (1888), Cuba (1886), and Peru (1854), the expanding agro-export complexes turned to semi-servile forms of labor as Chinese indentured servants (coolies) and, in Brazil's coffee regions, the complex colono system, combining elements of wage labor, sharecropping, and peonage. In some regions with scarce labor supply the boom of agricultural exports before World War I prompted large landholders or merchants to employ coercive labor regimes: the slave-like conditions of Maya recruited for Yucatan's henequen plantations, or the brutal regime forcing members of indigenous groups to work as rubber tappers in the Amazon region of Peru. Migrant labor streams (organized by labor contractors) often mimicked older hierarchical power structures based on race or class: highland indigenous peoples brought to sugar haciendas in Peru (enganche) and coffee fincas in Guatemala (mandamiento), or the migrations of blacks from the West Indies to sugar and banana plantations in Cuba and Central America. In large landholdings focused on DUA, peonage and sharecropping expanded with the haciendas between 1860 and 1930, although such systems increasingly came to reflect labor market conditions. Except perhaps in the Southern Cone and in Costa Rica, Latin America's real agricultural wages improved only modestly before World War II, and even declined in a few regions.

In most of the countries for which data is available, productivity in the agricultural sector grew much faster between the 1930s or 1940s and the 1970s than during the height of the first agro-export boom. The major reasons for this were the declining rate of growth of the economically active population in agriculture (in Argentina, Chile, and Venezuela the rate was actually negative) and the extension of significant capital investments to DUA, which still employed more labor and occupied more land than the export sector. Many family and multifamily farms became mechanized during these decades, began to use fertilizers on a regular basis, and adopted more productive hybrid seeds (the "green revolution") and disease-resistant livestock strains (the cebu cattle in lowland Colombia and parts of the Amazon). Massive state-sponsored dam projects made irrigation available to arid or semi-arid agricultural zones, especially in northern Mexico, northeastern Brazil, the Oriente of Bolivia and Chaco of Paraguay, and some parts of the Andes. As a result of both productivity increases and the extension of acreage through colonization, agricultural production in Latin America doubled between 1930 and 1980.

The liberal reforms carried out in most Latin American nations between the 1850s and 1880s cleared away many of the colonial legacies of rural labor and property regimes. Laws sought to disestablish corporate landholding (primarily by indigenous communities and the Catholic Church) with the aim of creating a free land market and securely titled private property. The Church ceased to be a significant owner of rural property in most regions after the early twentieth century. Old and new large landholders benefited from the often fraudulent sales of Church or communal lands. But in many areas of the Andes and Mesoamerica indigenous traditions of working and administering lands communally adapted to the new legal frameworks and survived. Slavery was abolished in Peru and Venezuela during the 1850s and in Cuba and Brazil in the 1880s. The liberal laws also abolished the indigenous head tax (successor of colonial tribute), tithes on agricultural crops, and unpaid labor services. But forced labor drafts for public purposes (road building, cleaning irrigation ditches) continued locally in many regions through the early twentieth century. While new civil codes modeled on the Code Napoleon sought to guarantee property titles for all citizens, in fact they often furnished legal tools to swindle poor farmers out of their land. In spite of its declared universalist intentions, in fact much of the liberal legislation favored powerful large landholders.

Changing ideological currents, growing state capacities and resources, and the perceived threat of heightened social tensions, led most Latin American governments to implement increasingly interventionist policies for the agricultural sector during the first three quarters of the twentieth century, but especially between the 1930s and 1970s. They were principally aimed at making agricultural production more efficient and productive, incorporating small farmers and landless rural workers—viewed as the most backward members of society—into national development (through improved income levels, education, and public health measures in the countryside), and undermining the power of traditional large landholder elites. In some cases such policies constituted a wholesale reversal of liberal land policies of the later nineteenth century, once again guaranteeing the right of indigenous communities to collective property (as in the famous article 27 of Mexico's revolutionary constitution of 1917, and Peru's constitution of 1920). Agricultural extension services and credit banks were established in the 1930s and 1940s. Between the 1950s and 1970s, governments launched regional development plans for impoverished regions, most famously the Superintendência para o Desenvolvimento do Nordeste (Superintendency for the Development of the Northeast, or SUDENE) for northeastern Brazil, and created production, marketing, and service cooperatives that organized machine pooling and crop storage. State agricultural agencies became powerful bureaucracies. Latin American governments' expenditures for agriculture grew at 8 percent annually in real terms between 1950 and 1980 (in Bolivia it grew by more than 1000 percent during that period). At the same time, however, price controls for staple foods—aimed at demobilizing burgeoning urban populations—and preferential exchange rates favoring targeted industrial growth sectors at times discouraged investments in agriculture, as occurred in Peron's Argentina during the early 1950s.

The land reforms carried out in the majority of Latin American republics between the 1910s and 1980s, and especially between 1950 and 1975, were the most spectacular form of state intervention in the agrarian sector. While they shared the goals of making rural incomes less unequal and breaking the power of the large landholding elites, they varied in terms of specific measures, their radicalism, and their long-term effects. Mexico's land reform—perhaps the core issue for rank and file followers of the 1910 revolution—began in 1915 and reached its apex between 1935 and 1940. It distributed some sixty-five million acres of land from former haciendas and public lands to small farmers and farm workers. The distributed land was organized in ejidos (agrarian communities holding inalienable title to the land) in which the beneficiaries mostly worked their lands individually; during the 1930s some collective ejidos were created on large commercial farms. Between the 1930s and 1960s the reform improved the livelihoods of millions of Mexican farmers and served as a major prop for the political stability of the regime of the ruling party, the PRI, while not blocking the development of capital-intensive private farms.

The land reforms of Bolivia (1953), Guatemala (1952, reversed by the 1954 CIA coup), Ecuador (1964–76) and Chile (1964–73) also benefited individual smallholders. But the reforms in Cuba (1961), Peru (1969–75) and Nicaragua (1981–90) created state-controlled cooperatives or outright state farms. The percentage of farmers receiving land was as high as 75 percent in Bolivia and as low as 5 to 10 percent in Costa Rica and Ecuador. The successful reforms did make distribution of land somewhat less uneven and raised income standards, especially for relatively affluent small and middling farmers. Nearly everywhere there was a still growing strata of poor small farmers and landless rural people who benefited least. They had least access to capital and improved farming techniques, and demand for year-round farm labor declined sharply due to mechanization, while the need for seasonal laborers increased. The notion that land reforms reduced agricultural productivity only held for a few cases (as in Peru). In Chile productivity grew faster during the entire land reform period than it had in the preceding decades except for 1972 and 1973, refuting one of the major justifications of the Pinochet regime's reversal of the policy.

By 1980 Latin America's agriculture had been thoroughly transformed. Most large landholdings had become highly productive commercial farms producing an ever-growing range of goods both for the export and domestic markets. Mid-sized family farms, employing mostly seasonal labor, had also become highly productive. At the same time the number of impoverished farmers with too little land and no access to credit or technology had also grown. Many of them now had to supplement farm incomes through seasonal labor in the commercial farm sector or in cities.

GLOBALIZATION AND CHANGE SINCE 1980

During the past twenty-five years Latin American agriculture has become involved in another cycle of globalization that has exacerbated some of the trends already noticeable in the 1960s and 1970s. Globalization was enabled by cheaper and faster transport and communication technologies (widely accessible jet air travel and air freight, containerized ocean transport, electronic media and communications). But the shift by most Latin American governments away from interventionist economic and social policies towards neoliberalism—begun in Pinochet's Chile during the mid-1970s and adopted elsewhere in the region between 1985 and the early 1990s—has intensified the impact of global economic forces on the region's agricultural sector. The "Washington Consensus," as economists call neoliberalism since 1989 in reference to policy prescriptions by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and the U.S. Treasury Department, prescribes, among other measures, fiscal discipline, liberalized trade and investment policies, and privatization of state enterprises. The push by the U.S. government and Latin American exporters for free trade agreements in the Americas (NAFTA, covering Canada, the United States, and Mexico, 1994; CAFTA for several Central Ameri-can and Caribbean nations, 2005; bilateral treaties between the United States, and Chile, Colombia, and Peru between 2002 and 2007) followed from the neoliberal prescriptions. These agreements have created growing markets for agricultural ex-ports from Latin America, but have also hurt the poor farmers producing food crops by cheaper imports of grains, corn, rice, vegetable oils, and other foodstuffs from the United States.

Land reforms were rolled back in countries from Mexico to Chile through parcelization of ejidos and cooperatives, and the auction and sale of land in the reformed sector to private commercial farmers. This rollback also created more minifundistas, as some cooperative or collective farms were split up into parcelas on which poor parceleros eked out a living. While state credit agencies for small farmers were closed or curtailed in several nations, governments focused their rural expenditures on infrastructure and technology for the agricultural export sector. Prodded by the World Bank and other international agencies, Latin American governments undertook efforts to create secure property titles for farmland, usually benefiting owners of mid-sized and large farms.

During the crisis-ridden 1980s and early 1990s, even while prices and net barter terms of trade for most agricultural commodities declined, Latin American agro-exports grew, albeit at a slower pace than during the preceding three decades. Productivity gains in agriculture also leveled off, at least through the mid-1990s. Besides growing exports of traditional staples such as coffee, sugar, meat, and grain, globalized infrastructure and transportation technologies have now created international markets for a broad range of commodities from fruits and vegetables to wine, shrimp, salmon, timber, and processed coca leaves (cocaine). This trend has accelerated since 2000, as many agricultural commodity prices have risen due to rapidly growing demand, especially from Asia. By 2006, Brazil had become the largest exporter of soybeans and orange juice, and Chile led the world in salmon exports. Still, the share of the economically active population employed in agriculture, livestock raising, forestry and fisheries has continued to decline, along with growing urbanization. Yet the neoliberal emphasis on resource extraction as motor of the economy has reversed the long-term decline of agriculture's share of the GDP, which rose from 10.1 to 10.9 percent during the 1980s, with larger gains probable since 2000. The new export crops have also significantly contributed to a decrease in the commodity concentration of the leading two exports (including non-agricultural commodities) in each of the Latin American nations from an average of 57.5 percent in 1950 to 28.3 percent in 1995. At the same time, the new emphasis on agro-exports has made agricultural production and farm incomes more volatile once again.

While much of the new investments in export agriculture came from Latin American corporations and wealthy families in the cities, international corporations became prominent in the export of tropical fruits, seafood and wine. In 2004, wealthy farmers from Illinois invested in soybean production in cleared Amazon forest lands in the Brazilian state of Tocantins, where lower land and labor costs allowed them to produce more cheaply than at home. The world's largest pork producer, from Virginia, built a 50,000-head hog farm in the western Brazilian state of Mato Grosso, planning to export pork chops to China once the trans-Andean highway to the Peruvian Pacific port of Ilo is completed.

The new emphasis on agricultural exports has mostly benefited modern commercial farms. The minifundistas producing traditional staple crops as maize, beans, potatoes, and manioc, whose number is still growing, have seen their incomes stagnate or decline. By the mid-1990s, after more than a decade of rapid growth of new agro-exports, 55 percent of Chile's rural households lived in extreme poverty. Unemployment and underemployment increased throughout Latin America during the 1980s and early 1990s, and has only declined slightly since then. More than two-thirds of the extremely poor people in Latin America live in the countryside. The income gap between owners of highly productive commercial farms and the owners of unimproved minifundios has remained huge. Many small farmers are now semiproletarianized, increasingly relying on supplemental wage income. Environmental costs of agro-exports have grown through the depletion and pollution of water resources, uncontrolled logging, and soil erosion.

Unions of small farmers and farm workers have grown since the 1960s, and have gained in militancy (after a lull during the 1980s) since the 1990s. Some, as the Ejercito Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (Zapatista National Liberation Army) in Chiapas state, Mexico, have aimed their campaign against the effects on their livelihoods of globalization, which has decreased prices for their crops. Brazil's Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (the Movement of Landless Rural Workers, MST) has become the largest social movement in Latin America, advancing its demand for farmland both through militant invasions of large landholdings and through well-organized protests, lobbying, and negotiations with the political authorities.

The rise of left-wing governments in Latin America since the late 1990s has its major cause in the broad public frustration about the social costs of the region's globalized economies and neoliberal policies, especially apparent in the rural sector. Brazil's President Lula da Silva implemented a program ("zero hunger") to guarantee minimum income to the poor; Venezuela's president Hugo Chávez has begun an agrarian reform project and made significant investments in public health and education, and Argentina's former president Nestor Kirchner reintroduced price controls. Yet most of these left-of-center governments have maintained fiscal austerity and relied heavily on commercial export agriculture to grow their economies. Whether any of their policies will result in diminishing the extreme inequality in Latin America's agricultural sector remained unclear in the early 2000s.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barraclough, Solon L. Agrarian Structure in Latin America. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, 1973.

Bauer, Arnold J. Goods, Power, History: Latin America's Material Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Bulmer-Thomas, Victor. The Economic History of Latin America since Independence. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Un-iversity Press, 1994.

Cortes Conde, Roberto, and Shane Hunt, eds. The Latin American Economies: Growth and the Export Sector. New York: Holmes and Meier, 1985.

Crosby, Alfred W. The Colombian Exchange: Biological and Cultural Consequences of 1492. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1972.

Dean, Warren. Brazil and the Struggle for Rubber: A Study in Environmental History. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

De Janvry, Alain. The Agrarian Question and Reformism in Latin America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981.

Diaz Alejandro, Carlos F. Essays on the Economic History of Argentina. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1970.

Duncan, Kenneth, and Ian Rutledge, eds. Land and Labour in Latin America: Essays on the Development of Agrarian Capitalism in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1977.

Edelman, Marc. The Logic of the Latifundio: The Large Estates of Northwest Costa Rica since the Late Nineteenth Century. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1992.

Foweraker, Joe. The Struggle for Land: A Political Economy of the Pioneer Frontier in Brazil from 1930 to the Present Day. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Furtado, Celso. The Economic Growth of Brazil. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1963.

Grindle, Merrilee. State and Countryside: Development Policy and Agrarian Politics in Latin America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986.

Johnson, Lyman, and Enrique Tandeter, eds. Essays on the Price History of Eighteenth-Century Latin America. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1990.

Kaerger, Karl. Agricultura y colonización en México en 1900. Transl. P. Lewin and G. Dohrmann. Mexico, 1986.

Kalmanovitz, Salomón, and Enrique López Enciso. La agricultura colombiana en el siglo XX. Bogotá: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2006.

Kay, Cristobal. El sistema señorial europeo y la hacienda latinoamericana. Mexico City: Ed. Era, 1980.

Kepner, Charles, and J. Soothill. The Banana Empire: A Case Study in Economic Imperialism. New York: Vanguard, 1936.

Konetzke, Richard, ed. Colección de documentos para la formación de Hispanoamérica, 1493–1810. 3 vols. Madrid, 1953–1962.

Larson, Brooke. Colonialism and Agrarian Transformation in Bolivia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988.

Lewis, Oscar. Life in a Mexican Village. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1951.

Long, Norman, and Bryan Roberts. Agrarian Structure of Latin America, 1930–1990. Institute of Latin American Studies, University of Texas, Austin, 1992. Texas Papers on Latin America, No. 92-02.

Melville, Elinor G. K. A Plague of Sheep: Environmental Consequences of the Conquest in Mexico. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Miller, Shawn W. An Environmental History of Latin America. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Moreno Fraginals. Mauel. El ingenio. Havana, 1964.

Murra, John. Formaciones económicas y políticas del mundo andino. Lima: IEP, 1975.

Schwartz, Stuart. Sugar Plantations in the Formation of Brazilian Society: Bahia, 1550–1835. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985.

Steen, Harold K., and Richard P. Tucker, eds. Changing Tropical Forests: Historical Perspectives on Today's Challenges in Central and South America. Durham, NC: Forest History Society, 1992.

Stein, Stanley. Vassouras: A Brazilian Coffee County, 1850–1900. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957.

Thiesenhusen, William C. Broken Promises: Agrarian Reform and the Latin American Campesino. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1995.

Nils Jacobsen

Encyclopedia of Latin American History and Culture

Agriculture

views updated May 14 2018

AGRICULTURE

AGRICULTURE. In 1500, between twothirds and three-quarters of European adults worked primarily in agriculture. The number who lived in the countryside and worked occasionally on farms was even higher—over 90 percent of the population in parts of eastern Europe. The numbers were still large in 1750, when agriculture employed half or two-thirds of the working population in many European countries.

Most Europeans had to labor on farms because agricultural technology was, by modern standards, rudimentary and agriculture itself unproductive. The majority of the population therefore toiled in fields and pastures to feed the minority who lived in manors and cities. Food shortages were common, at least for the poor, and bad harvests triggered food riots and sent the hungry roaming across the land in search of something to eat. In times of dearth, government officials diverted food to cities to prevent urban disturbances and sometimes even barred hungry paupers at city gates.

Agriculture was important for other reasons as well. Military leaders worried about feeding armies and providing them with horses, and with reason; otherwise soldiers would ransack homes. Farms were also a major source of income for the rich and powerful, who lived on the income from agricultural properties. The revenue might take the form of rent, of seignorial dues, or, in regions where serfdom still existed, of obligatory labor on noble estates. On top of all this, peasants paid the tithe to the church and taxes to fund the wars waged by early modern states.

Increasing the meager productivity of European agriculture became a great concern in the eighteenth century, when government officials and agricultural reformers argued about what would make farms produce more. Although there was no extraordinary technological revolution in farming until the nineteenth century, certain regions (such as Catalonia and the German North Sea Coast in the sixteenth century, or the Paris Basin and the wine-growing province of Beaujolais in the eighteenth) did experience increases in agricultural productivity in the early modern period. Two countries—England and the Netherlands—managed to forge ahead of the rest. Why farming advanced in England and the Netherlands, while most other European countries lagged behind, has been debated for over two hundred years, but new answers to this age-old question have begun to emerge from recent scholarship.

WHO OWNED THE LAND, WHO FARMED IT, AND WHO HAD RIGHTS TO IT

In most of early modern Europe, farmland was subject to a variety of rights and claims that made ownership complex. Technically, the land often belonged to aristocratic landlords (nobles, ecclesiastical institutions, or even merchants or officials), but, particularly in western Europe (eastern Europe was quite different), their rights were frequently limited to collecting insignificant fixed rents and relatively small dues and fees due them as seignorial lords. There were certainly exceptions to this rule, and most aristocratic landlords did have some plots—the demesne on their seignorial estates—that they could rent out for their full value. But it was the farmers themselves who exercised effective ownership of much of the agricultural land in western Europe, and what they did not own they usually rented. They had to pay the seignorial lord his dues and fees, use his mill, oven, or court; and perhaps provide him with a small amount of underpaid or forced labor. Typically, however, they could sell the land they possessed, bequeath it to their heirs, or sublease it. If they were tenants (rather than de facto owners), they would, of course, be unable to dispose of the property, and they would have to pay significant rent, perhaps to the seignorial lord (if, say, he were leasing out part of the demesne), or perhaps to some other landowner. Whatever the situation, how to farm the land was still their decision.

Most often these farmers were peasants. The most substantial ones had to amass large amounts of capital even if they were tenant farmers. They owned sheep, oxen or horses, plows and other implements, seed grain for planting, and money to hire workers or pay rent, and they saved so that their sons and daughters could be prosperous farmers, too. Other farmers had much less and could not even afford to pay cash rent. With no land of their own, they might enter into a sharecropping contract with a landlord, who would provide livestock, implements, and seed for farming in return for a large share of the crop (typically one-half) as rent. Nearly all the farmers (except for the most prosperous ones, who assumed the role of farm managers) worked on their own farms. They employed family labor, too—women milked cows, tended gardens, and cared for poultry, while even children helped bring in the grain harvest—and often hired long-term servants and temporary workers as well.

In eastern Europe, in contrast, the situation was almost reversed: there landlords managed to impose what is sometimes called a "second serfdom" on peasants during the early modern period. Peasants in much of the region (this is true in particular for what is now Poland, eastern Germany, western Hungary, and the Czech Republic) had exercised effective landownership and enjoyed considerable independence well into the fifteenth century. Thereafter, however, they lost their land to seignorial lords who incorporated it into their demesne, and much of their independence vanished, too. The landlords imposed heavy seignorial dues, forced the peasants to spend much of their time working for little or no pay on seignorial demesnes, and used their political and legal powers to keep them from fleeing or moving away. By the early seventeenth century, peasants in parts of eastern Germany had to work three days a week for their seignorial lords, while an average Polish peasant family might have to furnish two workers and oxen for the same amount of time every week.

Throughout Europe, peasant villages also exercised rights over the land. Villages often controlled access to pastures, waste, or unplowed fields that could be used for grazing. They could bar farmers from entering fields and vineyards to protect ripening crops from damage or theft, and they often determined when harvesting began. In eastern Europe, landlords weakened the villages when they imposed the second serfdom, but in western Europe the communities were strong enough to defend peasants' communal grazing rights against encroaching landlords. In doing so, the western villages often asserted that they were defending poorer villagers, who relied on the communal grazing rights because they had little or no land. Their claims were sometimes hollow, for in some instances the communal grazing land was the preserve of the community's richest peasants, who masked their monopoly in the language of concern for the poor.

AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES AND TECHNOLOGY

Bread was a staple of the European diet, grain was a major crop, and much European farmland was therefore devoted to growing wheat and rye, alongside oats for horses and barley for beer or soup. Even in major grain-producing areas, though, as much as a third of what farmers produced (after they fed the livestock) came from animals—in particular, wool and lamb from the herds of sheep that were sent to graze on fallow fields to fertilize them. In pastoral regions (such as Scandinavia, western parts of France and of Great Britain, and nearly any place where there were mountains), animals were even more important for the value of the products they provided: not only sheep, but herds of cattle, which were a source of beef, hides, and cheese. Nearly all farms, even small ones, had poultry in courtyards and pigs rooting for acorns in forests. Olives and fruit trees were important near the Mediterranean, and vineyards grew on hillsides and rocky soil even in northern climates. Even in areas that moved toward specialization in crops other than grain—parts of Normandy, for instance, which had shifted toward producing livestock—land was still often reserved for growing some wheat, rye, or oats. High transportation costs (particularly when there were no navigable waterways nearby) made it cheaper for most peasants to grow grain for their own consumption rather than specialize completely in stock raising or viticulture and then buying their food.

In much of Europe grains were grown in a three-year crop cycle known as the three-field system. Cultivation began with a year of fallow, when the land was fertilized with the manure of pasturing sheep and then plowed to rid it of weeds and incorporateorganic matter into the soil. In the second year, wheat or rye was sowed, followed, in the third year, by barley, oats, or a fodder crop such as vetch or peas. The land thus produced crops two years out of three. If land was abundant, or if the topsoil was thin or infertile, then the fallow, with its fertilizing and plowing, might repeat every second year, yielding crops one year out of two—what was called the two-field system. In some instances, the fallow might last even longer, and weeds and brush that choked the field would be burned before cultivation resumed.

Where the three-field system predominated—as in much of northwestern Europe—fields were often unfenced and open in order to allow animals to pasture. Fencing would have, in any case, been extremely costly because many peasants farmed narrow strips of land scattered through the various fields: several strips in the field sown in wheat, for instance, several more in the oat field, and still others in the fallow. Open fields were common in some regions of two-field agriculture, too, though not in all. On average (there were exceptions to this rule when soil was fertile or agriculture relatively advanced) the fields ended up producing perhaps only four or five times the seed sown, a tenth of the yield today. The meager yields were one reason so many early modern Europeans had to work in agriculture; another was the enormous amount of labor required to bring in the harvest in an era before mechanical reapers. Armies of men, women, and children invaded the fields to cut the grain with sickles, gather it up, and stack it for drying and storage. The demand would drive up wages in summertime and draw workers from cities. Even then the work was not over, for the grain still had to be threshed before it could be ground into flour. Once the harvest was over, many of the hands would be idle, and that was part of the appeal of rural industry, which provided work doing tasks such as spinning.

The practices of early modern farmers were condemned by eighteenth-century agricultural reformers and, more recently, by modern historians. Most of the critics believe that early modern farmers were wasteful or could have produced more. Some have argued, for instance, that early modern farmers could have replaced the two-field system with the three-field one, which would have yielded crops two years out of three instead of just one year in two, or they could have planted fodder crops (such as alfalfa, sainfoin, or clover) on the fallow fields, which were supposed to add nutrients to the soil and support larger herds of animals, thereby increasing the supply of fertilizer for the grain fields. But these criticisms often fail to take costs and technical difficulties into account. Often the fodder crops did not suit the soil or pay for the additional costs they entailed, and the two-field system was usually a reasonable response to soil conditions or a relatively lower price of land. Shifting to a three-field system would actually have been wasteful or have diminished yields. Similarly, critics might ask why peasants reaped wheat with sickles, when scythes, which had long been used to mow grass or harvest oats, could do the task in much less time. However, the scythe required considerable strength, and even in the hands of a man it tended to knock the kernels off the wheat stalks. Only skilled reapers could wield it successfully, and it was cheaper to employ women, children, and unskilled men, who sawed wheat with sickles. Early modern farmers did not have our knowledge or technology, but they were certainly not wasteful.

THE SUCCESS OF AGRICULTURE IN ENGLAND AND THE NETHERLANDS

Although early modern yields were low, agricultural productivity did jump in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in two countries—the Netherlands and England. Although the increase, particularly in England, has often been termed an agricultural revolution, it would probably be better to reserve that term for the truly revolutionary changes—such as chemical fertilizers or the mechanical reaper—that transformed farming in the nineteenth century. Still, there is no denying that agricultural productivity did surge in the Netherlands and England. Perhaps the best measure is an index of what the average farmworker produced in each country, in which all farm products, from grain to meat, are lumped together. This index, constructed by the economic historian Robert Allen, shows that in 1750 Dutch and English farmworkers were producing between 59 and 175 percent more than their counterparts in all European countries but one. The one exception was the southern Netherlands—roughly speaking modern-day Belgium—where farmworkers had reached the same high level of productivity back in 1400.

Judging the productivity of whole countries has the disadvantage of glossing over great regional variations. France as a whole had lower agricultural productivity than England or the Netherlands, but there were parts of the country, such as the Paris Basin, where farms were just as productive as those anywhere in Europe. Similar statements could be made about the German North Sea Coast, Catalonia on the Iberian Peninsula, and parts of Italy. Still, whether one focuses on regions or whole countries, why agricultural productivity was so much higher in some places than in others must still be explained. The issue has attracted the most historical attention in England, for it was the first country to industrialize. Yet, back in 1600 its agricultural productivity (the Netherlands's too) was no different from that of most other European countries.

One common explanation traces England's success back to capitalist landlords, who remade the countryside in what were called enclosures. The enclosures involved putting an end to village control of farming practices, creating large farms by consolidating scattered fields, and fencing in open fields so that new crops could be planted on the fallow or arable land converted to pasture. The enclosures, historians have argued, boosted agricultural productivity by changing property rights, enlarging the scale of farming, and putting capitalist landlords who understood agricultural technology in charge. Elsewhere in Europe, agriculture remained in the hands of peasants, whose farms were too small and who resisted new crops and enclosures, either because they were fearful or ignorant or because poorer villagers wanted to protect their communal grazing rights. For one school of historians, it is population growth that kept most European farms too small and in the hands of backward peasants. For another, it was politics and the strength of the landlord class, for population growth was the same in England as in countries such as France, where agriculture lagged behind.

Recent work, however, casts doubt on these arguments. Enclosures did not boost agricultural productivity much in England, or on the rare occasions when they were tried in France. Bigger farms did not matter much either. They may have helped economize on labor, but most of the increase in English agricultural productivity came not from capitalist landlords, but from yeomen, who were really large-scale peasants, operating farms of sixty acres or so. Peasants as a whole were quite receptive to new agricultural techniques and they adopted them when it paid to do so. Similarly, overlapping property rights and village control of agriculture were less of an obstacle than historians thought. There were problems when land had to be drained or irrigated, but drainage and irrigation cannot account for the difference between French and English agriculture.

Excessive rent, taxes, and seignorial dues depressed agricultural productivity in some parts of Europe, but the damage they did was probably not as great as some historians imagined. Particular rental contracts, such as sharecropping, were less a cause of agricultural stagnation than a way for landlords to lend capital to poverty-stricken tenants. If rent, taxes, and seignorial dues together took less than a third of what a farmer produced, then they probably did not harm agricultural productivity either. If, however, they increased above a third, or if they dulled a farmer's incentives, then they could injure farming. That was a likely cause for the dismal agricultural performance in eastern Europe, where the second serfdom discouraged peasants' initiative and effort, and in Spain, where high taxes drove peasants to sell their property to nobles, who had little reason to farm well.

Warfare also did enormous harm to early modern agriculture. Beyond seizing food and horses, troops disrupted trade, and when frightened peasants fled from advancing armies, fields grew over before it was safe to return, necessitating months or even years of plowing and land clearance before fields could be cultivated again.

England (but not the Netherlands) escaped the worst army, at least on its own soil, but both countries had the added advantage of excellent transportation. The Netherlands built a great network of canals, and England constructed both canals and roads. In other countries, a road might be built to move troops, but in England and the Netherlands the infrastructure facilitated trade. Trade, whether by land or water, encouraged great agricultural specialization in the two countries, and, in turn, specialization increased productivity as farmers adapted crops to soil and prices and worked harder to buy new consumer goods available on the market. This specialization goes a long way toward explaining why agriculture in England and the Netherlands was productive and more innovative than in the rest of early modern Europe.

See also Daily Life ; Economic Crises ; Enclosure ; Feudalism ; Food and Drink ; Food Riots ; Laborers ; Landholding ; Peasantry ; Physiocrats and Physiocracy ; Poverty ; Serfdom ; Serfdom in East Central Europe ; Serfdom in Russia ; Technology ; Transportation ; Villages ; Women.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abel, Wilhelm. Geschichte der deutschen Landwirtschaft vom frühen Mittelalter bis zum 19. Jahrhundert. 3rd rev. ed. Stuttgart, 1978. Wealth of detail about central Europe for readers of German.

Allen, Robert C. "Economic Structure and Agricultural Productivity in Europe, 1300–1800." European Review of Economic History 4 (2000): 1–26.

——. Enclosure and the Yeoman: The Agricultural Development of the South Midlands, 1450–1850. Oxford and New York, 1992. Best study of England.

Aston, T. H., and C. H. E. Philpin. The Brenner Debate: Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Europe. Cambridge, U.K., and New York, 1985.

De Vries, Jan. The Dutch Rural Economy in the Golden Age, 1500–1700. New Haven, 1974.

——. The Economy of Europe in an Age of Crisis, 1600–1750. Cambridge, U.K., and New York, 1976. Important for the role that transportation played.

Duplessis, Robert S. Transitions to Capitalism in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge, U.K., and New York, 1997. Good overview of agriculture throughout Europe with excellent bibliographies.

Finberg, H. P. R., and Joan Thirsk, eds. The Agrarian History of England and Wales. 8 vols. London, 1967–2000. Volumes 4 through 6 give exhaustive but somewhat dated coverage of the early modern period.

Hoffman, Philip T. Growth in a Traditional Society: The French Countryside, 1450–1815. Princeton, 1996.

Le Roy Ladurie, Emmanuel. The French Peasantry, 1450–1660. Translated by Alan Sheridan. Berkeley, 1987.

Meuvret, Jean. Le problème des subsistances à l'époque Louis XIV. 3 vols. Paris, 1977–1988. In French, but indispensible for understanding early modern agricultural technology.

Philip T. Hoffman

Europe, 1450 to 1789: Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World HOFFMAN, PHILIP T.

Agriculture

views updated May 18 2018

AGRICULTURE

James R. Lehning

Agriculture has until the last two centuries occupied most of the population of Europe, and this has made it a topic of major significance for social historians of virtually every historical period. Its study has required the use of a variety of primary sources, such as leases, registers of feudal obligations, notarial archives, landholding records, inquiries into rural conditions, and records from markets for agricultural goods. Historians of medieval and early modern societies see agriculture as the principal source of subsistence and wealth, providing the basis for human existence. It also served as a determinant of social and political relations in society, with institutions such as the family and local community organized around exploitation of the land. Political institutions were also organized to extract surpluses produced by agriculture to support other activities, such as warfare and religion. Agricultural production also is viewed as an important constraint on the possibilities of economic, social, and political transformation. While social historians would disagree on the rigidity of the relationship of agriculture to these other aspects of historical processes, few would deny the necessity of considering them as possibilities and of exploring their particular expressions in different times and places.

Agriculture in Europe at the end of the Middle Ages was characterized by great diversity from region to region and by dependence on farming practices that limited its productivity. Beginning in England and western Europe in the sixteenth century, production of grains increased due to expansion of the area of land under cultivation and the introduction of the intensive farming techniques of convertible husbandry, replacing fallow with legumes that restored the soil and provided pasture for livestock. These methods increased the productivity of the soil and diversified agricultural products, creating a model of agricultural revolution that other parts of Europe attempted to adopt, but with only mixed success in some parts of the Continent in the twentieth century.

AGRICULTURE IN THE LATE MIDDLE AGES

From the perspective of the rural village, Europe in the sixteenth century was made up of a combination of arable fields, natural pastures, woodlands, and wastelands. From the English Midlands across northern France, southern Denmark and Sweden, northern Germany, Poland, and into Russia these lands were often combined into an agrarian regime known as open field or champaign, in which the arable was cultivated in open fields in which each household held strips or furrows. South of this great European plain, the open fields were often divided into small irregular plots. In other areas, such as the enclosed fields of western and central France, in Walachia, and in parts of Lower Saxony, Westphalia, Bavaria, Schleswig, the Baltic lands, Brandenburg, and Hungary, isolated individual farmsteads existed with barriers of trees, hedges, or stone walls separating them from their neighbors.

The cultivation of grains, the principal foodstuff of Europe, took place in a system of crop rotation intended to avoid depleting the mineral content of the soil. In much of northern Europe this was a three-field system: in early autumn a winter cereal such as rye or wheat was planted in one field; in the spring, a second field was sown with barley, oats, or another small grain; the third field was left fallow to restore minerals, and especially nitrogen, needed to grow crops. In early or mid-summer the winter grain was harvested, followed by the spring grain in late summer. Then, in the autumn, the fallow field was planted in a winter cereal, beginning the process again. Farther south a two-field system, alternating grain and fallow, was used.

Rotation systems were maintained in areas of open field by customary rules enforced by the village community, which set common dates for planting and harvesting crops and which also allowed customary rights such as gleaning, which permitted the village poor to gather grain fallen on the ground after the first cut of the harvest. Gleaning, rights to pasture animals on the village common lands, and rights to fallen wood in communal forests were important supplements to the incomes of those in the village who lacked adequate land for subsistence. But while most families were able to keep barnyard animals such as chickens, and occasionally a goat, ownership of livestock such as cows or pigs was unusual. In most of the plain of northern Europe, the plow used was a heavy wheeled one, with a coulter in front to cut the turf, and a moldboard to turn the furrow to the side. In southern Europe, the plow used was a lighter one, without wheels, coulter, or moldboard, that only scratched the earth. Harvesting was occasionally done with a scythe, but more often the more labor-intensive sickle was used, since it did less damage to the ears of the grain and left a higher stalk, providing more straw for the villagers.

The productivity of this agricultural system was low in modern terms. The restoration of soil fertility by fallowing took one-third or one-half of the arable land out of cultivation each year. The principal fertilizer used was animal manure, produced by grazing animals either on natural meadow and pasture or on fields left fallow, but the small number of livestock limited its availability. In these conditions yields were relatively low: Slicher van Bath's compilation shows medieval returns on seed planted for wheat of about four to one, rising by the late eighteenth century to between six and seven to one on the Continent and to nine or ten to one in England. Rye and oats were also important cereal crops, producing slightly higher returns on seed than wheat (pp. 328–333).

In many parts of rural Europe the community itself was in an uneasy relationship with a lord who possessed ultimate control over the land. In medieval and early modern Europe land tenure was rarely in the form of a fee simple, in which the cultivator possessed complete control over the land. More often, some form of leasehold was the case, in which the tenant was restricted in the cultivation of the land and was required to pay rents, entry fines due when the land was inherited, and other obligations, such as the requirement to use the lord's court, to grind grain in his mill, to provide a number of days of labor service, and to pay the tithe in support of the parish church. These requirements could be very severe, as in eastern Europe where serfdom gave peasants few avenues of recourse against their lords; in other areas, however, customary law or centralizing monarchies protected peasant communities against the excessive demands of their lords, especially after the Black Death in 1348 had removed the late-medieval labor surplus in rural Europe.

These institutional aspects of agrarian society affected the ways in which the soil was cultivated. In an economy whose principle purpose was the production of foodstuffs, one form of agricultural household economy in early modern Europe consisted of a peasant family attempting to produce enough to feed its members, leading to a polyculture with an emphasis on grains. But dues, fines, and services owed by the peasant to his lord, and the tithe owed to the Church, also shaped production. Where these were paid in kind, peasants could be required to produce crops stipulated by the lord, and lords who were oriented toward the markets of towns and cities in their region or even in other parts of Europe could insist on the planting of more salable crops. Peasants could also be forced into the market themselves. Where dues had been commuted into money payments, peasants had to sell a part of their crop to gain the money to pay these dues. Especially in the more commercialized areas of western Europe, these markets could be very significant forces in agriculture, spurring practices such as those in the Upper Rhine, where the multiple governments of the region followed a policy intervening in the markets for meat and grain to ensure an adequate supply for the cities and towns of the region.

THE ORIGINS OF AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT

Beginning in the sixteenth century, especially in England and Holland, the low returns that characterized European agriculture began to increase. While solid data is lacking, and there has been disagreement among historians over its interpretation, this increase apparently occurred in two long phases: slow growth in the second half of the sixteenth century and the first half of the seventeenth, then again in the latter part of the eighteenth century and the nineteenth century. These increases occurred as a result both of more intensive farming and of bringing more land under cultivation. Improved crop and rotation systems increased the productivity of the land, breaking the closed circuit of traditional agriculture by the introduction of new crops, especially clover and turnips. These crops replaced fallow with a useful crop, increasing the supply of fodder, and allowing more livestock and greater manure production. They also helped the fields: clover fixed atmospheric nitrogen into the soil, replacing the nitrogen depleted by the growth of cereals; and turnips smothered weeds in fields, improving later cereal harvests.

To some extent, although how much is subject to debate, these increases in production took place within the existing agrarian system. For example, swamp drainage, as in Holland and eastern England, increased available land, and open-field systems adjusted in some places to changing economic circumstances. M. A. Havinden showed that, in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Oxfordshire, in the middle of English open-field country, improvement took place through subtle changes in the open-field system. The area of grassland was increased through planting sainfoin and clover as winter feed for livestock. Combined with the increased supply of manure provided by larger herds, these crops increased the fertility of the soil and allowed elimination of some, but not all, fallows. Pulses, planted as a part of more intensive cultivation, increased the feed supply for livestock. Arable land planted in grain decreased, but the higher productivity of the soil not only maintained the previous level of production, but also allowed a shift from rye, barley, and oats to wheat. Thus, without a significant modification of the landscape, an ascending spiral of increased productivity and production occurred.

ENCLOSURE: THE ENGLISH MODEL

Individual ownership of fields allowed for even more rapid improvement. Especially in England and northwestern Europe, increased security of tenure allowed yeomen and peasants to increase the productivity of their fields by adopting some aspects of convertible husbandry. More controversially, improvement also came about through the enclosure of common fields, a practice that especially marked English agricultural history. Enclosure took place by common agreement in many English villages in the late Middle Ages and in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and much of England outside of the Midlands had already been enclosed in this fashion before 1700 or had never been cultivated in open fields. But while about three million acres may have been enclosed by private agreement, another six to seven million acres were enclosed by parliamentary act, a technique that dominated enclosure after 1700 and was especially prevalent after 1750.

Enclosure by agreement could be a time-consuming and expensive process, requiring the consent not only of property owners but also of those with only use rights to the land. Enclosure by parliamentary act was easier, since it required the approval of the lord of the manor (who might be the instigator), the tithe owner, and the owners (but not those holding only use rights) of four-fifths of the land. Following passage of the act, the lands of the village were surveyed and redistributed as private holdings to the property owners. The result by either method could be a dramatic transformation of the lands of the village. Great Linford in Buckinghamshire, for example, was enclosed by agreement in 1658; new hedges were planted, roads and ditches were built, and enclosed pastures, most of them eventually rented to tenants supplying the London market for meat and dairy products, replaced the old open fields.

In classic histories of English agricultural development, such as Chambers and Mingay's The Agricultural Revolution 1750–1880, enclosure provided the basis for the implementation of convertible husbandry and for increases in labor and crop productivity, a necessary step toward agricultural revolution. This has been criticized by scholars such as Robert Allen, and it must be recognized that increases in production in some places were more the result of bringing more acreage under cultivation than of higher yields from existing arable lands. In County Durham, for example, studied by R. I. Hodgson, parliamentary enclosure in the late eighteenth century brought commons, moors, and wasteland under grain cultivation, and while some of this was farmed under improved rotations incorporating clover and turnips, much of it was cultivated under the older three-field system. David Grigg's study of south Lincolnshire showed that production was increased in the late eighteenth century by bringing marginal land under cultivation and by improving drainage. While the high grain prices of the Napoleonic era spurred production increases, they worked against the adoption of intensive farming techniques. But when prices fell after 1814, these techniques became necessary for farmers to survive, and, in what later came to be called high farming, sheep-rearing, fertilizers, root crops, and claying were used to increase returns on seed.

Enclosure took place because of the prospect of increasing income by bringing unused land under cultivation, gaining higher productivity through more intensive farming, and charging higher rents for more valuable land. But it brought costs, both public and private, associated with the passage of the act itself, and with the physical changes to the land. The costs of enclosure may have been high and charged disproportionately to smaller estates, and enclosure created some farms that were too small to be economically viable. One consequence therefore was the sale of smaller farms and estates at or shortly after enclosure. This might mean consolidation of larger estates, but there is also evidence of an increase in the number of owner-occupiers, especially during the most intense period of enclosure, the Napoleonic Wars.

English agricultural development was therefore a very complex process, with both intensive and extensive aspects. But for most commentators on agriculture it has served as a model against which agricultural systems in other parts of Europe and, in the twentieth century, the world are measured. This English model emphasizes the efficiency and higher productivity of larger farms over peasant smallholders because of their ability to make use of better crop and rotation systems, to increase animal husbandry, and to implement new farming techniques. It therefore points to the necessity of consolidating landholding, as occurred in England through enclosure, as the avenue to agricultural growth.

While it is increasingly doubtful, as we have already seen, that England itself followed only this path to agricultural development, it is certainly true that Continental Europe (except Holland) has had difficulty meeting the expectations of this model of supposedly successful "agricultural revolution." It has instead seemed hindered by peasant cultivators focused on autoconsumption rather than production for a market, the ability of the peasant community to resist innovation, and the absence of improving landlords. While, as in England, the Continent saw a slow recovery of agricultural production in the two centuries after the Black Death in 1348, it also experienced the long seventeenth-century depression marked by low prices and declining rents on land. In Spain and Italy the decline appears to have begun early in the century, perhaps as early as 1600 and accelerated after the 1620s. In France, the reign of Louis XIV (1643–1715) was marked by initial stagnation and then, beginning around 1660 or 1670, a sharp decline in regions as different as the Beauvaisis, Provence, and the west.

THE AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION

The eighteenth century, in contrast, was a period of rising prices in much of Europe as market demand rose for agricultural products, stimulating attempts to increase production. A slow increase in population began with the recovery after the late fourteenth century, increased into the seventeenth century, and then accelerated in the eighteenth. Rural smallholders in some parts of Europe living through both agriculture and by employments such as spinning and weaving cloth for urban merchants were unable to produce enough to feed themselves and, along with growing urban populations, this created increased demand for agricultural products. The first quarter of the century saw only minor indications of the transition from depression to growth, but Fernand Braudel and Ernest Labrousse's Histoire économique et sociale de la France shows that after 1726 prices steadily increased until they leveled off in the 1780s (pp. 329–405). Further east, in the Baltic and North Sea area, the demand for grain and cattle also came from international trade with England and northwestern Europe.

Increased demand was only one of the factors in the late eighteenth century stimulating agricultural improvement in continental Europe. The dissemination of literature advocating scientific farming, and the foundation of schools to teach these methods, began the process of spreading the methods imported from Holland and England. The physiocratic doctrines elaborated in France beginning in the 1750s argued that land and agriculture were the sole sources of wealth, and combined with mercantilistic doctrines in central and eastern Europe these theories encouraged rulers to adopt policies improving agriculture. Anglomania among the educated classes in eastern and central Europe did the same. There were therefore numerous attempts by rulers and their administrators to enclose communal lands and consolidate landholdings in the states of the Holy Roman Empire, in Scandinavia, in the Habsburg Empire, and in Russia and Poland.

The effects of these changes on agricultural production and techniques, however, have been difficult to establish. Cultivation by peasants of crops that fell outside of the rent system was one possible response to increased market demand for agricultural products. Landlords might have difficulty exploiting the opportunity through more intensive farming because of problems in obtaining adequate effort from peasant laborers, competition with peasants for common lands, and a shortage of manure.

In France, the first part of the eighteenth century saw a shift from earlier abandonment of arable to clearing wastelands for cultivation, a trend that became more pronounced after mid-century but that may have added only about 2.5 percent to the arable of the country by 1789. There was also a slow decline in fallowing and a shift from rye to wheat production. But only in the second part of the century is there evidence of any significant increase in agricultural production, the result not only of these modest improvements in agricultural practices but also of more favorable weather in the last few decades of the Old Regime.

When placed against the English model, especially the intensive farming that seemed to contribute so much to the increased agricultural production of that country, continental Europe has therefore seemed marked by agricultural stagnation. But the regional diversity of the early modern economy, pre-eighteenth-century attempts at expansion in the agricultural sector, and the multiple routes, outside of enclosure, toward this expansion are becoming increasingly apparent to historians. This is especially the case in northwestern Europe, where yields around 1800 seem to have been as high as in England. Philip Hoffman has argued that in some parts of France, such as Normandy, the area near Paris, and parts of southeastern France, there were spurts of growth in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. These were the result of both intensive and extensive improvements. New crops were planted, meadow and arable increased, and market-oriented vineyards developed. But political crises such as the Wars of Religion and state tax policies disrupted these growth spurts. There is also evidence from Basse-Auvergne and Dauphiné showing the ability of smaller farmers to adopt diversified crop rotations. Thus, in this revisionist view, increases in agricultural production occurred, and it was not so much small farms, immobile peasants, or weak markets that hindered agricultural growth as it was events outside of agriculture that disrupted this growth when it did occur.

Commercialization also was an important factor in increasing agricultural production in central Europe in the last decades of the eighteenth century. Increased fodder made more livestock possible, increasing as much as 150 percent between 1750 and 1800 in parts of Prussia. This enabled farmers to decrease fallowing and increase grain production, and specialization in commercial crops, especially wheat for export to western Europe, became more common.

But even as production increased, agriculture in much of continental Europe continued to use older rotation and cropping systems; livestock and artificial fertilizers were rare, and returns on seed remained low. Improvement continued to be slow into the nineteenth century. Gabriel Désert and Robert Specklin claim that in France, in spite of the turmoil and disruptions of the Revolution and empire, fallows were reduced by 20 percent, the amount of arable planted in wheat increased by 10 percent, and, following an estimate made by the Société d'économie politique, the gross agricultural product increased by 11 percent in the quarter century between 1789 and 1815 (pp. 107, 138). But in many parts of the country techniques remained unchanged. In 1840 fallowing and wasteland remained common, especially in the south and west, where more than 30 percent of the land area was unused; only in the north and east, and some parts of the southwest, had significant progress been made in bringing more land under cultivation.

Division of common lands in France also occurred slowly, in spite of pressure from agricultural reformers. Increasing production in the first half of the century was made difficult by one long period of price decline until the early 1830s and another at mid-century, and by increases in land rents and labor costs. Nonetheless, by mid-century, cereal production had increased by more than 40 percent over the beginning of the century, and an increased part of this was wheat, replacing rye as the principal grain for market. Other crops, such as potatoes and sugar beets, had also been introduced, and this greatly increased food supply. Livestock increased by a quarter to a third, especially during the 1830s and 1840s.

Land reforms carried out in Prussia and some west German states in the first half of the nineteenth century provided opportunities for division of commons and consolidation of landholding. At the same time, improvements in transport made commercial agriculture more attractive. Agricultural production in central Europe slowly increased in the decades before 1840: cereal production in Prussia rose from 4.6 million tons in 1816 to 6.8 million in 1840, the weight of livestock increased, and other parts of German Europe witnessed similar gains. As in France, these gains were in many places the results not only of the implementation of scientific farming methods but also of the reduction of fallow and cultivation of former wastelands and meadows. But across Europe these increases in production were fragile: the crisis of the late 1840s dropped production back to close to the levels of the turn of the century, reminding Europeans how closely they lived to bare subsistence.

THE GROWTH OF COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURE AFTER 1850

It was during the two decades after 1850 that the countryside in western and central Europe, spurred by transport and market improvements, truly opened toward great increases in production. Secondary roads were improved, making it easier for products to get to markets and for manufactured equipment, such as scythes and the improved Dombasle plow, to reach peasants. The railroad, especially secondary lines, created national markets for agricultural products: grain and livestock could be sent to major cities, ending the threat of famine there, and fertilizer could be shipped to peasants anxious to increase the productivity of their land. Prices rose after 1850, as did both rural wages and emigration from the countryside to cities, increasing rural incomes and stimulating agricultural production for the market. Gabriel Désert has shown that while in France the expansion of the area planted in cereals ceased in 1862, other crops, such as potatoes, beets, and vines were in full expansion, as was livestock (pp. 247–251), and Maurice Levy-Leboyer estimated that the value of French agricultural production increased by 80 percent between 1852 and 1882 (p. 803).

It is not clear that these increases were due to substantive changes in agricultural practices. In France, rising prices certainly contributed to the increased value, and production increased by only 25 percent. The productivity of the soil increased only slightly, and, for cereals, remained 38 percent behind that of Great Britain. France lagged far behind other European countries in the production of livestock. A similar pattern is found elsewhere. In Prussian Upper Silesia grain production had increased rapidly between 1846 and 1861, growth due to increases in both acreage under cultivation and yields. These slowed after 1861, and from the 1860s to the 1890s growth in production continued but at reduced rates. Only after 1890 did yields again rise, generating growth in production even though acreage under cultivation stagnated.

The weaknesses of continental European agriculture became apparent in the twenty-five years after 1870, when a long decline in agricultural prices occurred. This was the consequence of the development of a global market that created competition, especially in cereals, with producers in other parts of the world. Unless protected by tariffs, many European grain producers, aristocrat and peasant alike, had trouble dealing with cheap imports from the Americas. Although prices improved somewhat in the 1890s and after the turn of the century, the ability of wheat producers in the North American Midwest to undersell European farmers even in European markets pointed out in glaring fashion the limitations imposed by the low productivity of European agriculture at the end of the nineteenth century. The depression forced difficult choices on many of the small peasant farmers in western and central Europe, and for some a retreat from the market and a return to production aimed primarily at autoconsumption was a logical strategy. For others, however, the depression forced rapid adoption of means, such as chemical fertilizers, that increased land productivity. Concentration on commercial dairy farming was a key recourse in Holland and Denmark. While agricultural production stagnated in some countries, such as England, it increased rapidly in Germany, Austria, Hungary, and Scandinavia.

In parts of central Europe and farther east the development of agriculture was complicated by the survival into the nineteenth century of serfdom, a system that left many peasants in servitude to their lords, with little incentive or resources to increase the productivity of the land they worked. The end of serfdom in these lands came in the course of the nineteenth century. But creating free peasants was one thing and increasing agricultural productivity another. Agricultural reformers in the bureaucracies of Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Prussia sought to improve agricultural productivity, but without launching major reforms of landholding and without great success. Eastern European agriculture remained marked by farms composed of scattered plots of land, a low level of investment, poor links to markets, and a low level of productivity.

These problems were especially evident in the Russian Empire, the world's largest exporter of cereals at the end of the nineteenth century. Emancipation of the serfs in Russia in 1861 did little to increase output or change methods of cultivation. After the turn of the century, there was some consolidation of landholding, encouraged by the Stolypin reforms of 1906, which attempted to divide communally held lands into individual farms. These farms, it was hoped, would use improved rotations, plant grass crops, and become more productive, creating the exportable surplus on which the Russian economy depended.

But by the eve of World War I Russian agriculture had made only slight improvements in production. Heavy taxation and unequal terms of trade between towns and countryside limited investment in agriculture. Russian agriculture was still focused on cereal production and often used three-field rotation systems that left much land fallow each year. Even after a decade the reforms of 1906 had only affected a small proportion of the countryside. Russia suffered from increased competition from American wheat in its traditional export markets of northwestern Europe in the second half of the nineteenth century, and like all European wheat producers it faced declining prices from 1873 until the 1890s. Its most important crop remained grain, and the continuation of communal agriculture in most villages into the 1920s, with its periodic redistribution of land, meant that individual peasants had little ability or incentive to improve the land that they farmed.

WESTERN EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

The development of a global market for agricultural products in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries conditioned developments in the agricultural systems of all countries in Europe. The uneven improvement in productivity that characterized the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries resulted in different abilities to compete in the global market, leading to different strategies in the twentieth century to increase production and productivity. The inability of agricultural systems to compete even in their own domestic markets led in the 1890s to protective tariffs in many countries. But while this protection may have limited the social effects of competition and preserved small peasant farms, it also reduced incentives to increase agricultural productivity.

Social experiments, such as collectivization in the Soviet Union and in eastern Europe, were intended to increase production, as were policies of consolidation and of intense cultivation of smaller farms. The record of these policies is inconsistent, but it appears that peasant family farmers were able to raise productivity while large collective farms struggled to meet production goals.

In France, for example, the many small farms of less than 5 hectares that existed in the nineteenth century declined dramatically from more than half of landholdings in 1929 to about one quarter in 1983. Very large farms, of more than 100 hectares, increased only slightly, but medium-sized farms of 5 to 100 hectares came to dominate French agriculture (60 percent in 1983). The poorer regions of the south and the Massif Central followed the north and east in reducing fallowing and the use of artificial fertilizers. Falling farm prices that began in the late 1920s and continued through the 1930s accentuated the rural exodus that began in the late nineteenth century, and after World War II the shortage of labor encouraged the adoption of labor-saving machinery not only on the large cereal farms of the north and east but even on the poorer family farms of the south and west, where after 1945 a "tractor revolution" mechanized production.

These developments were widespread in western Europe. The years of prosperity between the end of World War II and the recession of 1973–1974 transformed western European agriculture through a combination of increased competition and state management. The most important aspect of this was the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Economic Community formed in 1958. This policy was highly controversial, but the EEC took some steps toward accomplishing its goals of creating a single market for agricultural goods with common prices, protecting the farmers of the member countries against foreign competition, and promoting rationalization of agricultural production. Its pricing mechanism tended to set prices higher than market because of political pressures, and the result was not so much rationalization as overproduction, whose costs are borne by the member nations through a system of price subsidies that limited the market impetus for change in the structure of agriculture.

The EEC did open new markets within Europe for farmers in its member countries, although for some products, such as wine, it removed the protection that tariffs had provided since the 1890s. Some governments passed measures, such as French laws of 1960 and 1962, encouraging the retirement of older farmers and the consolidation of property holding. Greater organization and cooperation among farmers improved crops, livestock, and farm management. Productivity increased to the point that surplus, rather than shortage, became the major problem in agricultural policy making.

Many of the changes in western European agriculture over the twentieth century could be seen in Buzetsur-Tarn, a village in southeastern France that in the nineteenth century was dominated by small family farms either owned, sharecropped, or leased by their cultivators. Agricultural improvement during the nineteenth century came about not through dramatic increases in the productivity of wheat fields, but through the development of crops—hay, vegetables, and wine—that could be transported to market on the railroad that came to the town in 1864. But the phylloxera infestation of the 1880s and 1890s hurt the vineyards, and by the period between the World Wars market gardening was also in decline. Peasant polyculture revived, with farms again producing primarily wheat, fodder, and a little wine. There was some mechanization of harvesting between the wars, the result of the rural labor shortage. Fertilizer was used, but only in small quantities.

Significant increases in agricultural productivity came only after 1950. Between 1950 and 1962 most farmers acquired tractors. Dairy products replaced vegetables as a market crop, and by the 1960s a new generation of farmers adopted intensive methods to increase crop yields. Combines and seed drills came into use. Dairy farming increased the amount of manure available, but new seed varieties required intensive artificial fertilizing. In the 1970s the use of herbicides and fungicides became common. To maximize their ability to use these new methods of cultivation, the young farmers of Buzet took advantage of the French government-sponsored process of remembrement, the consolidation through exchanges of scattered landholdings into large fields. Irrigation projects were developed to deal with summer drought, and improvements in drainage, made cooperatively with European Economic Community assistance, increased the production of winter crops and made it possible to work in the fields without getting stuck in the muddy clay.

AGRICULTURE IN EASTERN EUROPE IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

Such success stories remain tenuous in western Europe because of the threat of declining crop prices to the newly efficient and productive family farmers in villages such as Buzet. But they remain a different experience than that of eastern Europe in the twentieth century. The emancipation of serfs in Russia and elsewhere in eastern Europe in the nineteenth century opened the possibility of reforms of the agricultural systems there by developing private landholding and improving rotation systems, but in the twentieth century the hopes of agricultural reformers remained only imperfectly fulfilled.

While most of eastern Europe was agricultural prior to World War I, the great landed estates of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and present-day Poland had not been able to increase their productivity. Throughout the region, land reforms were carried out in the aftermath of World War I. Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia became countries of small peasant proprietors. Ambitious plans for reform in Hungary and Poland were delayed and then moderated for political reasons. Both countries had many large landowners, especially in eastern Poland and central and eastern Hungary, who produced cereals or other products, such as timber, for national and international markets.

The motives for land reforms were political, social, and national, and little thought was given to their economic consequences. Increasing production was difficult for small peasant farmers who lacked capital to invest, technical knowledge and equipment, and efficient transportation. For example, wheat raised in Hungary was unable to compete against American wheat in the Munich market because of high relative production and transportation costs, even though only a few hundred miles separated Hungary from Munich. East European agricultural production therefore stagnated between the World Wars, in some instances actually declining in the 1920s before recovering in the early 1930s. There was some mechanization in the 1920s, but in the 1930s, with declining prices and cheap labor, many tractors stood idle for lack of economic incentives to use them.

Bumper wheat and rice crops around the world created a glut of basic foodstuffs in the world market in the late 1920s, cutting farm incomes across eastern Europe. As the Great Depression spread, prices for manufactured goods remained relatively high, creating a "price scissors" for peasants, in which they continued paying high prices for manufactured goods while receiving less for the crops they sold. This was especially severe in 1932–1934, striking smallholders particularly hard because, unlike large landholders, they were not protected by government export policies. Peasant purchasing power did not recover significantly in the 1930s, leaving them not only with a declining standard of living but also unable either to make improvements to increase productivity and become more competitive, or to repay loans drawn in the 1920s to improve farms or carry operating expenses from one year to the next. Many of the peasants who had received land in 1919 were forced to sell it back to their former landlords to pay debts, and agriculture throughout eastern Europe became divided into large farms of over fifty hectares and peasant smallholders with less than five hectares.

In Russia, the disruptions caused by the Revolution of 1917, the civil war that followed, the collectivization of agriculture in 1929–1930, the Nazi invasion during World War II, and Soviet policies aimed at managing agricultural production and organization transformed the country from the largest exporter of grain in the world at the beginning of the century to the world's largest importer of grain and livestock products by the 1980s. Particularly devastating was the policy of forced collectivization, in which individual farms and communally held lands were brought into either collective farms (kolkhozy) or the more disciplined state farms (sovkhozy).

While one aspect of collectivization was the creation of a rural landscape in which mechanization and other modern farming techniques could be used, it nevertheless proved disastrous. In the short run, collectivization destroyed independent family farmers, the kulaks; led to the slaughter of horses, cattle, and other livestock by peasants to avoid turning them over to the collective farms; and created a famine in the early 1930s. In the long run, the modest gains of the Stolypin era (1906–1916) and the market-oriented New Economic Policy (1923–1928) in the productivity of arable land were reversed. The total grain harvest of the former imperial territory only regained its 1913 level in 1952–1954; the number of livestock returned to its 1928 level only in 1956.

A Virgin Lands program begun in 1954 brought under cultivation previously unused lands throughout the USSR, especially in eastern Kazakhstan. This program began to pay off in 1956, helping produce a record grain crop in that year. But these lands did not initially require fertilizers, and while wheat production increased initially, problems remained in other parts of the agricultural sector, such as vegetables and livestock. The diversion of equipment and expertise to the virgin lands in the east led to decreased returns in older agricultural areas in the western areas of the USSR. A goal set in the 1950s of matching American diets was never met because of low production of meat and dairy products. By 1963 the natural fertility of the virgin lands was exhausted, harvests declined, and a drought made grain shortages again a part of Soviet life. In 1963, for the first time, the Soviet Union became an importer of wheat.

The Soviet experiment in managing agricultural production through collectivization was extended after World War II to the countries of eastern Europe that became Peoples' Democracies. A first collectivization drive occurred immediately after the consolidation of Communist power in the late 1940s, but met with resistance from peasants seeking to maintain control of the farms they had only recently gained through the breakup of landed estates at the end of World War II. But there were significant variations from country to country. Private agriculture remained the rule in Yugoslavia, which after its political break with Moscow in 1948 ceased to emulate the Stalinist economic model, and in Poland, where only about 23 percent of the land was put into collective and state farms during the Stalinist phase from 1948 to 1956. During the October 1956 revolt in Poland 80 percent of collective farms were dissolved by their members, and by 1970, private farms still made up 86 percent of the arable land in that country.

In other parts of Eastern Europe, a second collectivization push, in 1958–1961, was more successful and often brought most of the land into state or collective farms. In Czechoslovakia, for example, only 15 percent of the population worked in agriculture by 1968, but over 95 percent of agriculture was collectivized. In Hungary, where peasant opposition to the regime had been an important part of the unsuccessful 1956 revolution, a drive begun in 1959 nevertheless brought virtually all land into the state sector by 1961. The German Democratic Republic also collectivized most of its agricultural land in this period.

But collectivization was no more successful in Eastern Europe than in the Soviet Union in raising productivity. Only the German Democratic Republic matched western European increases in productivity. In most of the Peoples' Democracies, economic planning focused on industrializing what were, except for Czechoslovakia, primarily agricultural economies. These policies siphoned investment away from agriculture, making improvement in productivity difficult and, in many of the Peoples' Democracies, minimal. In Hungary, the collectivized ownership structure was not questioned, but by the late 1960s more importance was given to market forces for collective farms, and production increased as prices were allowed to rise. Private plots, which were the most productive form of agriculture in all of the Peoples' Democracies, were actively encouraged and, as producers of livestock, dairy products, eggs, vegetables, and fruits, became important parts of the agricultural sector. In Poland, the 1970s saw, perversely, attempts to reduce the importance of private agriculture: state investment went into the inefficient state sector, while private farmers found it difficult to obtain supplies. As a result, the proportion of land privately farmed had fallen to 75 percent in 1980. But agricultural supplies had also decreased. The government was forced to pay increased price subsidies to maintain urban food prices at a reasonable level, and there were a series of political crises triggered by government attempts to reduce the gap between prices at the point of supply and those in urban markets.

After the fall of the Peoples' Democracies of Eastern Europe in 1989 and the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, the countries of Eastern Europe moved at varying speeds toward more market-oriented economies and greater integration into the world market. In countries where private landownership was already widespread and where producer and consumer prices for agricultural products quickly were turned over to the market rather than state policy, such as Hungary, this occurred rapidly. The results of these changes were a movement of population from agriculture to other sectors of the economy (in Hungary farm labor dropped from 19 percent in 1992 to 8 percent in 1997 as a share of employment) and increases in labor productivity. Elsewhere, as in the Czech Republic or Russia, reforms were slower, accentuating long-term shortfalls and decreases in agricultural production. The collapse of the Eastern Bloc also disrupted market systems throughout eastern Europe. Even in the most advanced countries, the search for adequate markets and prices for agricultural goods remained a major task, and became even more difficult as the more advanced countries moved into the European Union, leaving their former trading partners behind. Agriculture in Eastern Europe therefore continued to face its long-standing problems of raising production and productivity, while facing new challenges of finding markets for its products.

CONCLUSION

The histories of European agriculture since the Renaissance emphasize both the prominence of a specific model of agricultural change, an agricultural revolution in which large enclosed estates allowed the implementation of intensive farming practices and increased the productivity of the land and overall agricultural production, and the rarity with which that model appears to have actually occurred. In England, the basis for the model, increases in production were the result of extensions of cultivation as well as improvements in productivity, and these improvements were achieved by yeomen farmers as well as on large estates. On the Continent, well into the twentieth century, placing more land under cultivation was often as important as increases in productivity in raising agricultural output, and many parts of Europe remain unable to increase productivity levels to those attained at the end of the English model. The history of European agriculture remains marked by uncertainties paralleling those of soil, weather, and blight that mark the cultivation of the land itself.

See alsoCapitalism and Commercialization (in this volume);Peasants and Rural Laborers (volume 3); and other articles in this section.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allen, Robert C. Enclosure and the Yeoman. Oxford, 1992.

Amann, Peter. The Corncribs of Buzet: Modernizing Agriculture in the French Southwest. Princeton, N.J., 1990.

Aston, T. H., and C. H. E. Philpin, eds. The Brenner Debate: Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Europe. Cambridge, U.K., 1985.

Bloch, Marc. French Rural History. Translated by Janet Sondheimer. Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1966.

Blum, Jerome. The End of the Old Order in Europe. Princeton, N.J., 1978.

Braudel, Fernand, and Ernest Labrousse, eds. Histoire économique et sociale de la France. 3 vols. Paris, 1970.

Chambers, J. D., and G. E. Mingay. The Agricultural Revolution 1750–1880. New York, 1966.

Cleary, M. C. Peasants, Politicians, and Producers: The Organisation of Agriculture inFrance since 1918. New York, 1989.

Conquest, Robert. The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine. New York, 1986.

Désert, Gabriel. "Prosperité de l'agriculture." In Histoire de la France Rurale. Vol. 3: Apogée et crise de la civilisation paysanne: 1789–1914. Edited by Georges Duby and Armand Wallon. Paris, 1976. Pages 221–253.

Désert, Gabriel, and Robert Specklin. "Victoire sur la disette." In Histoire de laFrance rurale. Vol. 3: Apogée et crise de la civilisation paysanne: 1789–1914. Edited by Georges Duby and Armand Wallon. Paris, 1976. Pages 107–141.

Grigg, David. The Agricultural Revolution in South Lincolnshire. Cambridge, U.K., 1966.

Haines, Michael. "Agriculture and Development in Prussian Upper Silesia, 1846–1913." Journal of Economic History 42 (1982): 355–384.

Havinden, M. A. "Agricultural Progress in Open-Field Oxfordshire." AgriculturalHistory Review 9 (1961): 73–83.

Hodgson, R. I. "The Progress of Enclosure in County Durham, 1550–1870." In Change in the Countryside: Essays on Rural England, 1500–1900. Edited by H. S. A. Fox and R. A. Butlin. London, 1979.

Hoffman, Philip T. Growth in a Traditional Society: The French Countryside, 1450–1815. Princeton, N.J., 1996.

Kerridge, Eric. The Agricultural Revolution. London, 1967.

Lehning, James R. Peasant and French: Cultural Contact in Rural France during theNineteenth Century. New York, 1995.

Levy-Leboyer, Maurice. "La croissance économique en France au XIXe siècle." Annales: Economies, Sociétés, Civilisations 23 (1968): 788–807.

Medvedev, Zhores A. Soviet Agriculture. New York, 1987.

Morineau, Michel. Les faux-semblants d'un démarrage économique: Agriculture et démographie en France au XVIIIe siècle. Cahiers des Annales 30. Paris, 1971.

Overton, Mark. Agricultural Revolution in England: The Transformation of the Agrarian Economy. New York, 1996.

Pavlovskii, Georgii. Agricultural Russia on the Eve of the Revolution. New York, 1968 (1930).

Poitrineau, Abel. La vie rurale en basse Auvergne au XVIIIe siècle. Paris, 1965.

Reed, Michael. "Enclosure in North Buckinghamshire, 1500–1750." AgriculturalHistory Review 32 (1984): 133–144.

Rosenthal, Jean-Laurent. The Fruits of Revolution: Property Rights, Litigation, andFrench Agriculture, 1700–1860. New York, 1992.

Scott, Tom. Regional Identity and Economic Change: The Upper Rhine, 1450–1600. Oxford, 1997.

Seton-Watson, Hugh. Eastern Europe between the Wars, 1918–1941. New York, 1962.

Slicher van Bath, B. H. The Agrarian History of Western Europea.d. 500–1850. Translated by Olive Ordish. London, 1963.

Sutherland, D. M. G., and T. J. A. Le Goff. "The Revolution and the Rural Economy." In Reshaping France: Town, Country, and Region during the French Revolution. Edited by Alan Forrest and Peter Jones. Manchester, U.K., 1991. Pages 52–85.

Thirsk, Joan, ed. The Agrarian History of England and Wales: Volume 4, 1500–1640. Cambridge, U.K., 1967.

Turner, Michael. Enclosures in Britain 1750–1830. London, 1984.

Van Zanden, J. L. "The First Green Revolution: The Growth of Production and Productivity in European Agriculture, 1870–1914." Economic History Review 44 (1991): 215–239.

Wunder, Heide. "Agriculture and Agrarian Society." In Germany: A New Social andEconomic History. Volume 2: 1630–1800. Edited by Sheilagh Ogilvie. New York, 1996. Pages 63–99.

Encyclopedia of European Social History

Agriculture

views updated May 18 2018

AGRICULTURE

AGRICULTURE. The decreased role of agriculture in American life at the beginning of the twenty-first century masks the extent to which farming has often shaped the national experience. Agriculture, at the very least, features an impressively lengthy heritage. The first American farmers were Native Americans who cultivated indigenous and Mesoamerican plants in excess of seven thousand years ago. Amer Indian agriculture evolved according to environmental, technological, and cultural imperatives. In the South, river valleys and floodplains attracted early farming endeavors. Squash was planted in the Lower Tennessee River valley over four thousand years ago. In sub-sequent years, southern tribes developed sophisticated intercropping skills based around complementing one crop with another. Beans and corn proved an ideal mix, beans providing valuable soil nutrients (such as nitrogen) required by corn, while cornstalks served as convenient climbing vehicles for beans.

Agricultural pursuits varied by region. In the Upper Great Lakes, Ojibwa and Assiniboine nations sowed wild rice in fertile marshlands. The slight interest in horticulture on the Great Plains reflected the dominance of hunting pursuits. From the eighth century onwards, corn represented the most widespread agricultural product in the aboriginal economy. In the Southwest, Anasazi farmers developed their own hybrid corn from chapalote and maize de ocho. Native Americans also pioneered irrigated agriculture. In the Salt and Gila Valleys, the Hohokam dug (and successfully maintained) irrigation canals up to seventy-five feet across. Two canals measuring over ten miles in length watered fields near today's Phoenix.

Colonial Agriculture

The first European farmers drew on indigenous wisdom in order to survive. Prepared for gold-searching rather than subsistence farming, early residents of Jamestown, Virginia, relied on local Indian knowledge of planting to circumvent starvation. Settlers learned how to cultivate corn and tobacco. The pilgrims of the fledgling Plymouth Colony similarly discovered the wonders of maize. As the Massachusetts Bay Colony expanded, pioneers introduced cows, horses, and sheep to the eastern landscape. With few sheds and little fencing, livestock initially ran wild. Most early colonists were city gentry, religious dissenters, or indentured servants—all with little experience of farming. Tools proved basic, with the hoe, axe, and scythe the most common implements. Those who were fortunate enough to own plows made money by working the fields of their neighbors. Fresh immigrants sought out Indian clearings for crop cultivation rather than expend significant time on tree felling and heavy brush clearance. While a few regions, such as the Connecticut River valley and the Hudson River area, proved ideal for agriculture, thin and rocky soil compromised crop productivity on the eastern seaboard. Most farmers migrated to fresh terrain when soils became depleted rather than develop sustainable agricultural systems. The sheer abundance of land lent itself to this practice, with more territory always available for cultivation. The taking of Indian land occasionally provoked violent confrontation. In 1676, tormented by Indian attacks and crop failures, Nathaniel Bacon led a vigilante group of servants and small farmers to exact revenge on local Native American communities. Governor William Berkeley, who challenged the rebellion, was placed under house arrest.

Easily grown and requiring no machinery to process, corn served as the staple food crop in the fledgling colonial economy. Meanwhile, tobacco emerged as a key trade commodity. The first English tobacco was grown in Virginia in 1613. A smoking craze in western Europe encouraged colonists to continually increase their production of tobacco for export. Virginia farmers so focused on the weed that colonial governors issued regulations warning residents to plant some food crops for subsistence. In 1628, production surpassed 550,000 pounds. In the absence of harvesting machinery, tobacco, along with other crops, depended on ample manual labor. At first, indentured servants filled the niche in the fast-expanding tobacco fields of Virginia and Maryland, as well as in the rice fields of South Carolina. However, servitude gave way to slavery. By 1700, southern agriculture was already dependent on a slave economy.

During the 1700s, established New England agriculturalists experimented with more specialized forms of production. Animal husbandry developed in response to needs for draft horses to pull wagons and quality meat for town dwellers. German American farmers bred the much-lauded Conestoga breed of draft horse. By furnishing all manner of grains for consumption in the fast-expanding cities of the Atlantic seaboard, as well as for export abroad, New Jersey and Pennsylvania farmers earned their colonies the reputation of breadbasket kingdoms. Meanwhile, in the South, plantation owners reaped successive financial harvests from a single-crop economy based on exploitative labor. In 1708, tobacco exports reached 30 million pounds. On the eve of the American Revolution, the figure surpassed 100 million.

Farming in the New Republic

During the American Revolution, agriculture proved essential in keeping both armies fighting. Farmers responded to war by increasing their production of cattle, fruit, and crops. A female labor force filled roles previously occupied by men. Shortages usually came about as a result of troop movements and transportation problems rather than agricultural shortfalls. Both sides drew on the lofty image of owning one's own farm to recruit men for war duties, offering acres of land to those who volunteered.

The victorious United States was, first and foremost, an agricultural nation. Having procured a farm in New York, French commentator J. Hector St. John de Crèvecoeur, writing immediately after the Revolution, explained how "this formerly rude soil has been converted by my father into a pleasant farm, and in return, it has established all our rights; on it is founded our rank, our freedom, our power as citizens, our importance as inhabitants of such a district" (Letters from an American Farmer [1782]). In Notes on the State of Virginia (1787), Thomas Jefferson expounded his idea of a virtuous agrarian nation by claiming that "those who labor in the earth are the chosen people of God." Agriculture united men of differing classes and persuasions, appealing to both the rugged frontiersman and the dignified gentleman—the latter finding outlet in the Philadelphia Society for Promoting Agriculture (1785) and the South Carolina Society for Promoting and Improving Agriculture and Other Rural Concerns (1785). Farming was a way of life. The 1810 census recorded a total population of 7.2 million Americans, 90 percent of whom lived on farms.

Successive land acts—most notably the Land Survey Ordinance of 1785 and the Land Act of 1796—set in motion the transfer of the public domain to private hands. Land was survey ed, parceled into townships, and auctioned. However, a minimum purchase of 640 acres, at first priced at one dollar, then increased to two, proved beyond the reach of the average farmer. Land speculators benefited most from the distribution system, while squatting on unclaimed tracts became popular with poorer farmers. Geometric parcels, the infamous grid system, hardly abided by landscape topography or suited river access. When sales proved disappointing, the government instituted credit reforms and reduced the minimum acreage to 160 acres.

Farming expanded west of the Appalachians during the late 1700s. The Ohio River valley, with its rich soil and timber resources, invited settlement. However, frontier farming proved far from easy. Migrant families arrived at their wilderness purchase with few animals, tools, or financial resources. Densely forested land required extensive clearing. Agricultural technology remained primitive, with the time-honored plough, the sickle, the hoe, and the axe physically testing the endurance and the resolve of the agrarian pioneer. The transporting of goods was limited by dirt roads and changeable weather conditions. When it rained, roadways disappeared beneath mud and surface water. Farmers set their sights on quick improvements to properties before selling out to purchase a larger acreage. Successful frontier farming depended on good soil and a dedicated family. From an early age, children contributed to the home economy from milking to harvesting. Country stores proved important suppliers of all manner of items from tea and coffee to gunpowder and pottery.

Having exhausted soils in Georgia and the Carolinas, southern plantation owners joined small-scale farmers in moving into Alabama, Mississippi, and western Georgia in the early 1800s. The wealthiest plantation holders purchased vast swathes of land; poorer farmers were often left with marginal plots. Cotton became a staple crop of the South with the invention of the mechanized cotton gin by Eli Whitney in 1793. The machine separated valuable cotton fiber from unwanted seed. In 1811, output of cotton in the South exceeded 80 million pounds.

The antebellum period was marked by new technologies, increasing commercialization and specialization, geographical expansion, and transportation innovation. Much-improved transport routes aided New England farmers. The opening of the Erie Canal in 1825 allowed grain to be moved at far cheaper cost. While initially charging twenty-two dollars per ton for travel, by 1835 the cost of canal transport had dropped to just four dollars. The Cumberland or National Road, starting at Cumberland, Maryland, reached Vandalia, Illinois, in 1841. Westerly migration continued unabated, with the farming frontier extending to Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa in the north and Texas in the south. Pioneers took to raising cattle for beef in Ohio and parts of Kentucky. As industrializing cities attracted many rural migrants, northern farmers welcomed developments in labor-saving agricultural machinery. John Deere engineered the steel moldboard plow in 1837 (dubbed the "singing plow" for the whining noise it produced when cutting), a tool much valued on the midwestern prairie with its rough sod. Agricultural societies and fairs proliferated. Nonetheless, farming endeavors in the United States were divided according to two types of agricultural system: small-scale farming in the North and the plantation in the South.

Postbellum Agriculture in the South and the North

The testing climate of the Civil War highlighted inadequacies in southern agriculture. Not only was farmland wrecked by conflict and slash-and-burn techniques, but structural deficiencies came to the fore. Transport systems were shown to be deficient and southern agriculture lacked a diversity of products. White planters suddenly found themselves without a labor force. The reconstruction of southern agriculture proved difficult. Freed slaves relished the idea of having their own farm, a project taken up by the government under the auspices of the Southern Homestead Act (1866). However, available public land was generally of poor quality, while freedmen lacked the money necessary for forest clearance, housing, and planting. Only four thousand claimants applied for plots under the act and the measure was repealed ten years later. Systems of tenancy gradually emerged in the postbellum South. Sharecropping involved the lease of typically twenty to forty acres (along with tools and housing) by a landowner to a working family. In return, the family forfeited a proportion (usually half) of its crop. Merchants and landowners loaned cash or supplies to sharecroppers who had little money to pay for basic living expenses. In practice, revenue from the harvest frequently failed to cover repayments, and many sharecroppers found themselves with spiraling debts. White landowners grew to exercise levels of control similar to the pre–Civil War era. Cotton production dominated the southern landscape, aided by high prices (rising to forty-three cents a pound) in the late 1860s. Even when prices dropped to ten cents a pound in the mid-1870s, output continued to rise. By 1890, production had reached 8 million bales a year.

In the North, increased markets and the absence of significant wartime disruption allowed farmers to repay debts and improve their landholdings. Land prices soared, rising in Iowa from twelve dollars an acre in 1860 to twenty-five dollars ten years later. Agriculture became more mechanized, with new plows and reapers taking advantage of farm horses. Regional specialization proceeded apace as farmers were forced to become more competitive and efficient. Facing foreign and domestic competition, many sheep raisers abandoned marginal lands to take up jobs in the swelling cities. Dairying and fruit growing became increasingly popular in New England, aided by high prices, urban demand, and innovations in refrigeration technology.

The government maintained a keen interest in the agricultural sector during this period. After lobbying from the U.S. Agricultural Society (1852), Congress established the Department of Agriculture in 1862 (raised to cabinet level in 1889). Isaac Newton, who had previously served the agricultural division of the Patent Office, assumed the mantle of first commissioner. During the same year, the Land-Grant College Act (or Morrill Act) allotted public land to individual states for the purpose of establishing agricultural colleges. Federal and state agencies became involved in information gathering, regulation, and scientific research. In 1884, the Bureau of Animal Industry was established to curb imports of diseased animals and to work towards the eradication of Texas fever, a cattle affliction spread by ticks. The Hatch Act of 1887 offered federal support to agricultural experiment stations linked to land grant colleges. (The first station had been established in 1875 at Wesley an University in Middletown, Connecticut.) Scientists studied insect disease, dairy production techniques, and plant breeding and hybridization. The late 1800s also saw the strengthening of farmers associations, who sought to influence state and federal policy in matters of animal health as well as price subsidies and credit payments. Formed in 1867, the National Grange of the Patrons of Husbandry explored cooperative ventures, demanded lower railroad tariffs and banking rates, and lobbied for gender equality. The Farmers' Alliance exerted an influence over federal agricultural policies in the 1880s, but it was largely subsumed under the People's Party's 1892 platform of economic intervention, nationalization of railroads, and agricultural assistance. After a lackluster performance in the 1896 election, the populist movement dissipated, though farmers' associations continued to draw support. In 1902, Texan Isaac Newton Gresham established the Farmer's Educational and Cooperative Union. Later known as the National Farmers' Union, the organization gained popularity on the Great Plains and in the Midwest.

The Conquest of the West

The first government agents and army scouts to cross the Mississippi spoke of a barren area entirely unfit for agriculture. In 1810, Zebulon Pike defined the Great Plains—the undulating sea of grass that stretched from longitude 100© west to the Rocky Mountains—by its aridity. The report accompanying Major Stephen Long's 1820 expedition described the region as "a dreary plain, wholly unfit for cultivation, and of course uninhabitable by a people depending upon agriculture for their subsistence." Long's famous phrase, the "Great American Desert," passed into the popular vernacular and was featured on maps of the United States for many years after. Accustomed to temperate eastern climes, travelers to the High Plains appeared shocked by its lack of trees, sparse vegetation, and seasonal extremes. Traditional agriculture did not seem possible in this semi-arid environment.

However, another image took hold in the American mind, one that rendered agriculture instrumental to the settlement of the West in the 1800s. Inspired by Jefferson's agrarian vision for the United States, and informed by the ideology of Manifest Destiny, citizens began to regard the West as a garden, a pastoral paradise for the taking. One of the first to publicize this idea was explorer John Frémont, who insisted that agriculture could flourish on the plains. Similar advertisements abounded in railroad publications from the 1860s. Many believed that bringing the plains under cultivation would encourage moisture; in the famous expression of the time, "rain would follow the plow."

Interest in the West following the Louisiana Purchase of 1803 focused on its valuable fur trade, other trading opportunities, and minerals. In the 1830s, emigrants established farms in Oregon's fertile Willamette Valley. The Mormons pioneered irrigated agriculture by diverting streams and building canals in Salt Lake City from the late 1840s. In California, a produce economy grew up around San Francisco and the Central Valley servicing Gold Rush mining towns with wheat, wine, and fruit. However, these represented localized pockets of agricultural activity. Of a total 1.5 million American farmers in 1850, only 119,000 tended lands west of the Mississippi.

It was the passing of attractive land laws that enticed Americans and Europeans to the West in number. Land and prosperity were connected under the Homestead Act of 1862, legislation allotting 160 acres of "free land" to citizens over the age of twenty-one who had never fought against the United States. (The latter provision was dropped in 1866 to allow ex-Confederates to file claims.) Title was granted after five years of cultivation or payment could be commuted after six months at $1.25 an acre. Fifty-seven percent of farms on the frontier were established under the Homestead Act. Settlers also purchased plots at auction or from land speculators.

Beginning in the late 1860s, families stacked their belongings into wagons and headed west in droves. Kansas, the Dakotas, and Nebraska attracted more than 430,000 land claims before 1895. Between 1896 and 1920, the homestead boom spanned Montana, the Dakotas, Colorado, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. The first homesteads were built in streambeds and along rivers. After these prized lots were taken, settlers staked claims on the prairie. Faced with a dearth of wood and water, farmers built houses from sod and dug wells. Many settlers planted corn or wheat as cash crops and kept a small vegetable plot or garden. However, customary agricultural practices proved ill suited to western terrain. Less corn grew on 160 acres in west Kansas than on 40 acres in Illinois. Contending with a lack of tools, limited labor, and occasional plagues of grasshoppers, many first-generation farmers elected to go back east or push on to the Pacific. The agrarian dream nonetheless had a powerful allure, and there were always sod busters willing to try their luck on the prairie.

Great Plains farmers learned to adapt. Many remedied the lack of timber for fencing by planting Osage orange hedges. Mennonites from Germany introduced Turkey Red Wheat, a hardy variety that withstood harsh prairie winters. In the 1870s, Colorado landowners led by George Washington Swink tapped water from the Arkansas River to grow cantaloupes and sugar beets. Technological advances aided the western farmer. Wind pumps, barbed wire, grain drills, sulky plows, and mechanical reapers improved productivity and labor efficiency. The railroad brought a revolution in transportation, allowing farmers to gain supplies and ship their products to market swiftly and easily. Some even believed that the steel wires of the railroad encouraged rain. Heavy rains indeed fell west of longitude 97© west between 1878 and 1887, bringing with them a flood of hopeful farmers.

Although cattle had been raised at Spanish missions since the 1700s and pioneers such as William Sublette had brought steers to Wyoming in the 1830s, the cattle kingdom rose to dominance in the western economy only after the Civil War. The industry began in Texas, where enterprising outfits such as the XIT Ranch capitalized on the availability of grassland and the abundance of longhorn cattle (some 5 million by 1866) to build a successful ranching economy. Cattle freely roamed the range until the spring and fall roundups, when cowpunchers drove herds to railheads, bound for the Chicago stockyards. Some 10 million animals were driven out of Texas between 1865 and 1890. By The 1870s, the cattle industry had spread across the Central and Northern Plains. As demand for higher quality meat increased, shorthorns and herefords replaced the scrawny but resilient longhorns. The open range gave way to closed pasture in the 1880s following the invention of barbed wire and escalating land feuds between homesteaders and cattlemen.

The late 1800s brought a time of depression for the agricultural economy of the West. Homesteaders faced problems of overproduction and falling market prices. Between 1866 and 1894 wheat prices fell from $2.06 a bushel to just 49 cents. The summers of 1886 and 1894 were among the driest on record. Many farmers faced starvation and destitution. Between 1890 and 1900, the number of farms in western Kansas declined from 14,300 to 8,900. Life was equally desperate for ranchers. Over-stocking of the open range caused prices to plummet, and when the blizzards of 1887 hit, up to 85 percent of the cattle perished. Writing in 1901, William D. Johnson of the U.S. Geological Survey called the settlement of the Great Plains an "experiment in agriculture on a vast scale. It nevertheless ended in total failure."

Much of the trans-Mississippi region had been brought into cultivation by 1900. Wheat proliferated east of the Rockies, cattle and sheep grazed the intermountain West, and speciality crops grew on Pacific slopes. With the majority of western lands receiving less than twenty inches of rainfall a year, successful agriculture remained dependent on irrigation. The federal government played a crucial role in making the environment more suitable for farming. The Timber Culture Act of 1873 allotted free title to 160 acres if one quarter of that area was planted with trees, while the Desert Land Act of 1877 gave 640 acres to settlers who agreed to water their land, although such measures were sometimes rendered ineffective by fraud. Recognizing a need for the federal government to help organize water projects, Congress passed the Newlands Reclamation Act of 1902, a landmark scheme that assigned the Reclamation Service (later the Bureau of Reclamation) the task of overseeing reclamation projects. Seen as second only in significance to the Homestead Act, the Newlands Act irrigated the West through a series of dams along watercourses including the Salt River in Arizona and the Truckee and Carson Rivers in Nevada. By 1924, federal projects had watered 1.2 million acres in the region.

From Golden Age to Disaster

Government irrigation programs, technological innovation, a strong export economy, and a growing urban population delivered a golden age to American farmers in the early years of the twentieth century. Public confidence ran high, as did prices for agricultural products. World War I provided a further boost to grain, stock, and cotton markets. Land became a valuable commodity, the price of farm lots doubling in Iowa between 1914 and 1920. Meanwhile, Congress sought to address the limitations of the original Homestead Act, increasing allotments for western crop and animal producers to 640 acres under the Kinkaid Act of 1904, the Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909, and the Stock Raising Homestead Act of 1916.

The early 1900s witnessed a commercial revolution in American agriculture. Technological improvements increased efficiency and productivity. Some 17,000 tractors were produced annually by 1917. That year, Henry Ford unveiled the Fordson, a maneuverable tractor affordable to the small farmer at $750. Farmers became increasingly adept at managing crops and animals to maximize output. Scientists genetically altered corn to breed a more productive hybrid seed. Advances in veterinary science resulted in the near elimination of tick fever in cattle by 1914. The American landscape increasingly bore the hallmarks of commercial agriculture. Farmers in Connecticut and New York concentrated on fruit production; Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan were renowned for dairy; the midwestern farmer favored corn and soybeans; wheat and alfalfa grew on the Great Plains; and cotton and tobacco remained staples in the South. The tendency towards rationalization reached its apogee in California, where Central Valley farmers developed a lucrative fruit-and-vegetable enterprise based on commodity exchanges and supply controls. Large-scale industrialized producers came to dominate the market in the Far West based on capital investment, vertical integration, and cheap migrant workers lacking union representation.

The period of agricultural prosperity that marked the early 1900s came to an end in the 1920s. Crop prices decreased as war demand and relief programs faltered. Many small farmers had overextended themselves to meet wartime exigencies. Mechanization, increased acreage under cultivation, a declining birthrate, and protectionism created a surfeit of agricultural products. Prices plummeted, with gross income from agriculture declining from nearly$17 billion in 1919 to less than $12 billion ten years later. The situation became more acute after the Wall Street Crash of 1929, which caused a massive fall in the domestic produce market as a consequence of mass unemployment. In 1932, grain prices ran at twelve cents per bushel; hogs rated at three cents a pound. In 1933, the index of farm prices stood at 70, from a figure of 148 four years earlier.

Farmers in the Midwest faced environmental as well as economic catastrophe. A dry spell beginning in 1931 brought parched crops, cracked earth, and dust storms. Many farmers abandoned their plots, leaving more loose topsoil to be whipped up by strong winds. Historians continue to debate the cause of the Dust Bowl, positing drought, inappropriate agricultural practices, and an exaggerated belief in human ingenuity as contributory factors.

On 14 April 1935, a day known as Black Sunday, dust storms darkened the sky from the eastern seaboard to the Rockies, an area of some 100 million acres. In the worst-affected regions—Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas, Colorado, and New Mexico—the "Dirty Thirties" caused crop failures, livestock die-offs, and a bout of respiratory ailments. One eyewitness recalled how "all we could do about it was just sit in our dusty chairs, gaze at each other through the fog that filled the room and watch that fog settle slowly and silently, covering everything—including ourselves—in a thick, brownish gray blanket." Around 500,000 people

chose to leave the Midwest during the 1930s, a migration epitomized by the flight of the Okies to California.

The New Deal

Having pledged a "New Deal for the American People" at the Democratic National Convention in July 1932, Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office in March 1933, determined to tackle the social and economic malaise wrought by the Great Depression. Judging it imperative to keep the country farming, New Deal reforms were quick to focus on agriculture. Agrarian communities received crop subsidies, credit relief, and soil conservation programs to the tune of $1 billion. Such measures continued a historic involvement of the federal government in promoting agriculture. However, FDR's activist program inaugurated a new level of intervention. Where the Hoover administration had previously advocated voluntary crop supply restrictions and limited help for cooperatives, Roosevelt committed the government to agricultural planning, production, distribution, and financial subsidy on an unprecedented scale.

The centerpiece of legislation for the American farmer was the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) of May 1933. The AAA sought to stabilize crop prices and farmers' incomes by controlling the production of seven basic commodities. The federal government was authorized to negotiate with producers to reduce acres under cultivation, while a tax on processors further discouraged production. Farmers received compensatory checks for leaving land fallow, a handout that the government hoped would prevent loan foreclosures. Between 1934 and 1935, the AAA successfully reduced the amount of land given over to tobacco and cotton, but it failed to have a discernible impact on staples such as wheat, hogs, corn, and dairy. Critics pointed out that the AAA favored large and efficient producers (with more land to put aside) over tenants and sharecroppers. In 1936, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the tax on processors unconstitutional, resulting two years later in a revised act that compensated producers who instituted soil conservation measures.

The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) of October 1933 allowed the government to purchase crops and distribute them in such a way as to prevent price rises. Commodities that could be stored were withheld from sale, while perishable goods were given to charitable organizations and schools or were exported. The CCC paid more than the market value, providing an important safety valve for farmers in need of support. Other measures designed to shore up the agricultural sector by providing financial aid included the Farm Credit Act of 1933, the Resettlement Administration of 1935, and the Farm Security Administration (1937).

New Dealers prized rural electrification as a way of modernizing American agriculture. As of 1930, only 571,000 of the 6.3 million farms in the country featured electrical lighting. Regional disparities existed. California, Utah, and Washington were well catered for, not least because of the preponderance of irrigation programs requiring considerable power to run. In Arkansas and Louisiana, by contrast, only one in one hundred farms had electricity. A public scheme providing loans for power lines and generating stations was established under the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in 1933. Created by executive order the same year, the Electric Home and Farm Authority (EHFA) forwarded low-cost loans to farmers for electrical equipment. Inspired by the success of the TVA in bringing power to agrarian communities in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee, Roosevelt inaugurated a country wide Rural Electrification Administration (REA) in May 1935. Improvements in production techniques, mechanization, rural education, and domestic life marked the REA as an outstanding success.

The REA's motto, "if you put a light on every farm, you put a light in every heart," nonetheless failed to stem the flow of families leaving the land for the city. In New England, the number of farms dropped from 103,255 in 1930 to 21,670 in 1950. The three million African American tenants and sharecroppers who worked in the South faced poverty, unemployment, and racial discrimination. The New Deal brought benefits in the form of loans, price support, and soil restoration, yet it proved of limited effectiveness in improving the overall lot of the farmer. It was only with World War II and increased demand for foodstuffs, increases in industrial employment, and buoyant prices that the agricultural sector fully recovered. That said, FDR's New Deal remained immensely important for American agriculture, as programs enacted in the 1930s set a pattern of government regulation that persisted for the rest of the twentieth century.

Agriculture since 1945

The post-1945 period saw American agriculture become more industrialized and capital intensive. Acreage under cultivation increased with advances in technology, irrigation, and genetic engineering. The number of individual farm units declined markedly. At the time of the Civil War, 60 percent of the American population was involved in agriculture. By 1972, this figure stood at 4.6 percent. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, less than 2 percent of Americans were engaged in farming.

The commercialization of agriculture ensured that the small family farm lost out to large, efficient, and mechanized producers able to benefit from economies of scale. In 1955 John H. Davis, former assistant secretary of agriculture, coined the phrase "agribusiness" to describe the new breed of corporations that controlled the entire agricultural process from production to marketing, making deals with individual producers to deliver crops at fixed prices. The modernization of American agriculture brought significant regional changes. As consolidated agribusiness took hold of the modern plantation in the South, cattle, hogs, peanuts, and soybeans became as important as cotton. Meanwhile, the tenure system that had dominated southern agriculture since the late 1800s was replaced by owner or part-owned farms. By 1974, only 12 percent of farms in South Carolina were operated by tenants.

A single American farmer produced enough food to sustain ninety-seven other people by the 1990s (compared to five in 1800), a level of extremely high productivity facilitated by technology. Irrigated farming dominated the Great Plains after technicians in the 1950s developed machinery capable of siphoning water from the Ogallala Aquifer, a vast underground supply buried from fifty to three hundred feet below the prairie. From the 1940s onwards, chemicals, pesticides, and herbicides (many of which, including DDT, were developed for use in World War II and converted for peacetime use) further raised output. Crop duster planes scattered chemical supplements over the land in order to combat pests and aid seed growth. The use of such additives greatly increased production, although critics, notably the biologist Rachel Carson in her 1962 best-seller, Silent Spring, warned of dangerous ecological side effects. Citizen lobbying and scientific research led to a domestic ban on DDT in 1969. Since the late twentieth century, the agricultural sector has looked to biotechnology and genetic modification as ways to maximize crop resilience, productivity, and consumer appeal.

American agriculture continued to rely on government assistance. Federal programs centered on keeping farmers on the land by taking acreage out of cultivation and offering price supports, as with the Soil Bank Program of 1956 and the Food and Agriculture Act of 1965. Federal policy also encouraged production under subsidy for export to the developing world. With urban dwellers demanding high-quality, low-cost food, the rural sector faced considerable pressures in the post-1945 period. Boycotts and tractor convoys were among the tools employed by the National Farmers Organization, organized in 1955, and the National Farm Workers Association, founded in 1962, to lobby for improvements in rural standards of living. In the twenty-first century, prosperity for the farmer remains dependent on land, weather, market prices, capital investment, and government aid. As of 2000, federal spending on the agricultural sector ran at $71.1 billion, perhaps a testament to the special place of the farmer in American life.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berry, Wendell. The Unsettling of America: Culture and Agriculture. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1986.

Cochrane, Willard W. The Development of American Agriculture: A Historical Analysis. 2d ed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993.

Cowdrey, Albert E. This Land, This South: An Environmental History. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1996.

Cronon, William. Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England. New York: Hill and Wang, 1983.

Fite, Gilbert C. Cotton Fields No More: Southern Agriculture, 1865–1980. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1984.

Hart, John Fraser. The Land That Feeds Us. New York: Norton, 1991.

Hurt, R. Douglas. American Agriculture: A Brief History. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1994. A good introductory work that offers suggested readings at the end of each chapter.

Knobloch, Frieda. The Culture of Wilderness: Agriculture as Colonization in the American West. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996.

MacDonnell, Lawrence J. From Reclamation to Sustainability: Water, Agriculture, and the Environment in the American West. Niwot: University Press of Colorado, 1999. A study of irrigation in western agriculture through four case studies.

Meinig, Donald, The Shaping of America: A Geographical Perspective on 500 Years of History. 3 vols. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1986–1998. Includes Atlantic, continental, and transcontinental America.

Opie, John. The Law of the Land: Two Hundred Years of American Farmland Policy. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1987. A critical review highlighting the problematic assumptions behind American agriculture.

Saloutos, Theodore. The American Farmer and the New Deal. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1982.

Starrs, Paul. Let the Cowboy Ride: Cattle Ranching in the American West. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998.

Worster, Donald. The Dust Bowl: The Southern Plains in the 1930s. New York: Oxford University Press, 1979. A seminal account of the "Dirty Thirties" by one of the West's foremost environmental historians.

JohnWills

Dictionary of American History Wills, John

Agriculture

views updated May 23 2018

AGRICULTURE

The earliest human inhabitants of the earth were hunters and gatherers. Under favorable conditions they required at least 1.5 square kilometers to provide food for one person, and in harsher environments as much as 80 to 100 square kilometers. Population pressure eventually led humans to raise plants and animals.

With the introduction of agriculture, humans began to use energy to control the growth of plants and animals, to make more efficient use of the solar energy stored in plants by photosynthesis. However, for many thousands of years, the only energy used for this purpose was human energy. The energy drawn from the biosphere was limited to the dietary energy provided by plant food and meat, and to the use of wood and grasses as fuel for heating and cooking. Later, humans learned to use animal, water, and wind energy to obtain power for transport and for simple agricultural and industrial processes. As population grew, the use of energy increased steadily, but all of it came from renewable resources.

Shifting cultivation, one of the first agricultural practices developed, is still widely used. In the early 1970s, about 36 million square kilometers of land were farmed under this system, producing food for about 250 million people. Each hectare (2.47 acres or 10,000 square meters) under shifting cultivation can provide adequate food for one person. Degradation of soil and vegetation usually occurs when the population density exceeds one person per four hectares. At higher population densities, shorter fallow periods and eventually annual cropping become necessary.

Annual cropping by traditional methods requires more labor, and yields are generally lower. Although animal power can help reduce human labor and provide manure for fertilizer, draught animals must be either fed by some of the crop or pastured, thereby increasing the land area required per person unless yields per unit of land increase accordingly. Average livestock ate one-fourth of the yield in the early nineteenth century.

This land per person dynamic has changed in the past one hundred years as humans moved beyond the limitations of human and animal power by drawing upon nonrenewable sources of energy in the form of fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas. Rapid improvements in technology made it possible to locate and extract increasing quantities of fossil fuels with little or no increase in cost. By the 1950s and 1960s the world had come to take advantage of the large supply of fossil fuels to dramatically and economically boost agricultural production.

Energy dense fossil fuels can be converted very efficiently to heat and/or power. Use of energy for power has spread rapidly in both the industrial and agricultural sectors of the developed countries. The developing countries have followed the developed countries along the same path but at a slower pace. Although agriculture uses only a small share of the world's total energy consumption, it is generally recognized that its needs are crucial, because the existing technologies for increasing production rely so heavily on energy-intensive inputs. Farm use of energy accounts for only 4 percent of total commercial energy use in developing countries and 3 percent in the developed countries. Commercial energy includes oil, natural gas, and coal. Noncommercial sources of energy include fuel-wood, plant and animal residues, and human and animal energy. Noncommercial energy uses are very important in the developing countries, especially in rural areas.

There is a two-way relationship between agriculture and energy because agriculture is both a consumer and a producer of energy. Directly or indirectly, the whole agricultural process involves the input of energy. The ability of plants to capture and store the sun's energy through photosynthesis can be increased through the input of energy in the form of fertilizer, pesticides, and fuel to drive machinery used in production. The production of nitrogen fertilizers is very energy intensive input because it requires hydrogen-dissociation from water or fossil fuels (natural gas) to fix nitrogen in synthetic fertilizers. Production of pesticides similar to nitrogen fertilizers requires large amounts of energy. The gasoline and diesel fuel used for agricultural machinery also consumes a lot of energy, but has dropped significantly since the early 1970s because of better technology.

The role of energy in agricultural production has become crucial as population and income growth put pressure on the demand for food. By discovering new technologies (hybrid seeds, drought and disease-resistant crops, as well as genetically modified crops), dramatic increases in crop yields per hectare have been achieved in the developed countries. The pace of growth, however, has been uneven among developing countries. Asia has shown significant increases in agricultural productivity, while many countries in Africa and Latin America have had modest productivity growth. Although many developing countries have reserves of unused but potentially productive land, most have to meet rising food demands by substantially raising yields on both used and new land. The growth in yields does not come automatically. An increase in agricultural research investment is essential both to increase the yield and to expand the area under cultivation. Clearing less accessible new land for cultivation, which is the goal of many environmentalist groups, will require greater investment in inputs of commercial energy and often the provision of drainage, irrigation, and soil conservation systems. Once the land is under production, additional energy will be needed for maintenance.

CLASSIFICATION OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

World production of food and fiber could be classified into three distinct groups: traditional, transition from traditional to modern, and modern farming methods.

Traditional Agriculture

Traditional farms rely on labor, draught animals, and hand tools. The only commercial energy input in traditional farming is that required to produce hand tools and animal implements. No commercial energy inputs are used for irrigation; the land either gets rain or it's irrigated by traditional methods.

Traditional methods continue to be the mode of operation in many parts of the world. Currently agriculture production in many of the lowest income countries in Africa, Latin America, and Asia are based on traditional methods. Agriculture is largely operated by small family farms using human and animal power and organic fertilizer with little access to or knowledge of modern inputs such as chemicals, fertilizers, hybrid seeds, or mechanical drive. Low soil fertility and inadequate or irregular rainfall sharply limit the productivity of low-input farms in developing countries.

The Transition to Modern Farming

In the transition to modern farming methods, the use of commercial energy, especially machinery and fertilizer, increases sharply. Primary tillage is usually one of the first operations to be mechanized, requiring an increase in commercial energy use not only for the production of farm machinery, but also for its operation. Improved crop varieties are often introduced during the transitional phase, requiring commercial energy for their production and distribution. To help realize their yield potential entails the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Both of these inputs require commercial energy for their manufacture. In addition to the traditional irrigation methods, supplementary irrigation with mechanically powered pumps is often introduced during the transitional phase. This process substantially increases commercial energy requirements but also increases yields. The growing needs for investment during transition influence farm size. To achieve economies of scale, the number of family farms is reduced and they are replaced with larger commercial farms.

This general trend toward larger farms, greater mechanization, and greater use of commercial inputs in most countries results in greater productivity but at the cost of greater direct and indirect energy use. The combination of increased irrigation, use of high yield variety crops, and new inputs has contributed to steady increases in both absolute and percapita agricultural production.

Modern Commercial Agriculture

To feed the growing population, agricultural productivity must increase. Modern inputs are needed to increase agricultural production. Commercial fuel inputs to agriculture include mechanized land preparation, mechanized irrigation, and synthetic fertilizer. Modern commercial agriculture is greatly dependent on high yielding varieties, and modern pesticides.

The degree of utilization of the above inputs varies widely, but generally increases with economic development. These modern technologies reduce the time and labor needed for land preparation, plowing, planting, and harvesting crops. In favorable areas, it also aids double cropping management.

In the developed countries, stages in the historical development of agricultural production have been characterized by differing combinations of inputs: differences in relative proportion of land, labor and capital, and in the composition of the capital inputs. Such changes reflect primarily the changing structure of the economy and the successive advances that have been made in agricultural technology.

The well-documented case of the United States serves as an illustration. During the period 1870 to 1900 the farm population was increased through a rapid expansion of the agricultural area. The agricultural labor force increased by 60 percent, but there was a replacement of labor by nonland capital in the form of horses and mules. New and more efficient types of horse-drawn machinery including plows, cultivars, seed drills, grain harvesters, and mowers became available.

The following period, from 1900 to 1930, was a period of transition: the first half was the beginning of the end for traditional farming, based predominantly on large inputs of relatively unskilled labor, and the second half the beginning of commercial agriculture, technologically oriented and capital intensive. The crop-land use continued to increase until about 1920 but remained relatively stable thereafter, and the agricultural labor force continued to increase until about 1918. Equally significant, however, were the shifts that became evident in the composition of non-real-estate capital input: the replacement of horses and mules by tractors, automobiles and trucks; of manpower by motor-driven machinery and equipment; and the purchase of production inputs such as fertilizer, lime, seed, and feed required for the application of improved production techniques.

Between 1935 and 1960 outputs per man-hour of labor increased about 4.5 times, and crop production per hectare of crop-land almost doubled. Inputs of labor were decreased by 50 percent, inputs of land remained relatively stable, but inputs of non-real-estate capital inputs were nearly tripled. Among these capital inputs, those of seed, feed, and livestock purchased increased by about four times, and those of mechanical power and machinery by more than 2.5 times.

It has been estimated that of the total U.S. increase in farm output between 1940 and 1955, 43 percent is attributable to increased crop yields per hectare, 27 percent to increases in value added by livestock production, 23 percent to reduction in farm-produced power, and 7 percent to changes in the amount of capital used. While it is not possible to isolate the effect of a single input, it is estimated that increased use of fertilizer accounted for more than half of the increase in crop production per hectare. Other important causes of increased crop yields include the use of hybrid maize and other improved plant varieties, irrigation, better soil tillage practices, more timely planning, cultivation and harvesting operations, and better weed, insect, and disease control.

ENERGY USE IN TRADITIONAL AND MODERN AGRICULTURE

Commercial energy plays a major role in modern methods of production. Energy use even with modern methods varies by crop. Crops requiring irrigation use much more energy than rain-fed crops. About 42 percent of total energy is used for irrigation, 20 percent for the manufacture and operation of farm machinery, 18 percent for fertilizers, and 7 percent for drying. For modern rice production in the United States, the commercial energy input is more than 500 times that in traditional production and more than 10 times in transitional production in the Philippines. For modern corn production in the United States, total commercial energy use is only about half that in modern rice production, mainly because little or no irrigation is required. Regardless of the crop produced, energy use is much higher with modern production method. For example, commercial energy input in the United States is more than 174 times that in traditional production in the Mexico.

With modern production methods 1500 kilograms of petroleum per hectare are needed for rice and 700 kilograms for maize. However, with this commercial energy use, yields of 5.8 metric tons per hectare have been obtained for rice and 5 metric tons per hectare for maize—about five times those obtained with traditional methods, Thus, 20 to 25 people can be fed on an all-grain diet from a single hectare compared with 4 to 6 people by traditional methods.

Total energy used to produce a kilogram of rice on Philippine traditional farms requires three grams of petroleum and in transitional farms 55 grams. In the U.S. modern rice farming system the requirement increases to 258 grams of petroleum. Similarly, the ratio for corn production in Mexico for traditional farming is equal to four grams of petroleum, and for modern corn farming in the United States is equal to 137 grams of petroleum.

Despite higher dependence on energy in modern methods of production, agriculture is responsible for only a small part of total energy use. Total energy use as well as energy used in agricultural production in selected developing and developed countries and for the largest food producers in the world; the United States and China are compared in Table 1. In 1996, agricultural shares of energy use for all developed countries were 2 percent, whereas in the developing countries the proportion was slightly higher. Agricultural shares of total commercial energy use in the developing countries ranged from 0.67 percent in Egypt to 5.08 percent in Brazil. For the developed countries agricultural share of energy ranged from 1.09 percent in the United States to 3.39 percent for the European Community.

COMMERCIAL ENERGY USE IN AGRICULTURE

Agriculture uses a variety of commercial energy forms, directly for operating machinery and equipment on the farm and indirectly through the use of fertilizer and pesticides produced off the farm. In addition, commercial energy is used in manufacturing of farm machinery and farm equipment. During 1972 to 1973 farm machinery manufacture and operation, the largest user of commercial energy in agriculture, accounted for 51 percent of the world total and ranged from 8 percent in the Far East to 73 percent in Oceania. Chemical fertilizer was second with 45 percent of the world total and ranged from 26 percent in Oceania to 84 percent in the Far East. However, in the developing countries chemical fertilizer was first.

About 1.5 billion hectares of crop land are planted for annual crops and permanent crops. About one third of the arable and permenant crop-land is located in the United States, India, and China. Out of 1.5 billion hectares, 263 million hectares are irrigated. Irrigated lands in China and India account for the largest share—about 110 million hectares.

Reports by the International Energy Agency indicate that total renewable energy use in developing countries and in agriculture is high, but no data is available. The available data on selected countries shows that the use of renewable energy in developing countries varies from 5 percent in Egypt to 86 percent in Nigeria. Energy share of the renewable energy in the developed countries ranged from 1 percent in Japan to 6 percent in Australia.

To measure the efficiency of energy use in

	1996 Total energy use
			Energy used	Energy share of
	Fossil	Renewable	in agriculture	Renewable	Agriculture
	Million tons of oil equivalent			percent	percent
Developing Countries:
Bangladesh	22.32	15.76	0.48	71
Brazil	138.23	33.57	7.02	24	5.08
China	865.86	206.08	26.52	24	3.06
Egypt	25.2	1.19	0.17	5	0.67
India	350.26	188.65	8.1	54	2.31
Indonesia	99.76	43.83	1.67	44	1.67
Nigeria	73.12	63		86
Pakistan	46.82	21.09	0.84	45	1.79
Total developing	3270.3	824.73		25
Developed Countries:
Australia	66.11	3.99	1.5	6	2.27
Canada	181.92	8.58	4.13	5	2.27
EC(15) 1/	1010.54	26.37	23.15	3	2.29
Japan	337.08	3.42	11.44	1	3.39
USA	1443	30.09	15.8	2	1.09
Total developed	3479.11	96.32	72.61	3	2.09
World	6749.41	921.05		14

agriculture, energy use in agriculture is compared with agriculture's share of gross domestic products (GDP). For many developing countries, the share of agricultural GDP is much larger than the share of energy used in agriculture, which suggests that much of the agricultural sector is still engaged in subsistence, low input, labor-intensive farming. For some middle income countries such as Brazil, Egypt, and Indonesia the two ratios are in better balance. Developed countries have a very close balance between agriculture's share of GDP and share of energy use in agriculture. Energy use share is lower than agricultural GDP share except for Japan and the European Union which both rely heavily on intensive production methods.

Energy use per hectare of arable and permanent crop-land can be used as an indicator of the efficiency of energy use in agriculture, although definite conclusions from this indicator are hard to draw unless countries with the same scale of operations are compared. Low energy use per hectare can reflect low-input, low-yield agriculture, which is the case for some developing countries such as Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Pakistan. On the other hand, low energy use (dry-land farming with less fertilizer and pesticide use) per hectare can also indicate the extensive farming practices of countries such as Australia and Canada where low yield relative to high-input use countries have not prevented these countries from being competitive agricultural exporters. Japan and the European Union stand out as being very high energy users relative to their land base. The United States has a relatively low energy use per hectare, especially when compared to the European countries.

INPUT USE

Land Use and Irrigated Area

Using data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) for arable and permanent crop-land for 1966 to 1996, developing countries have experienced the most significant growth in land area. The highest growth was realized in Brazil, China, and India. In contrast, most developed countries have experienced a decline in arable and permanent crop-land, with Australia and Canada being the exceptions. For some developing countries, such as Egypt and India, increases in area as well as yields have been important in increasing output. For developed countries, increases in output have been a function of higher yields rather than increases in area. The U.S. agricultural area increased more than 12 million hectares during the 1970s and 1980s and declined in the 1990s, with an overall decline of one-half million hectares.

Irrigated areas increased in the last three decades in all countries except Japan. Growth has been rapid in Bangladesh and Brazil. Growth in irrigated areas in the United States has been among the slowest of the selected developed countries. The share of agricultural area under irrigation varies considerably, reflecting resource endowments and crop composition. In 1996, Egypt had 100 percent of its area under irrigation, followed by Pakistan with 81 percent and Japan with 63 percent. More than a third of land is irrigated in China, India, and Bangladesh. Canada, Australia, and the United States, with large-scale, extensive farming practices, have lower shares of irrigated areas.

Fertilizer Use

Fertilizer use (measured in tons of active ingredients) has increased most rapidly in developing countries, where yields generally lagged behind those in developed. Among developed countries, fertilizer use per hectare is very high in Japan and the European countries. Fertilizer use is also high in some of the developing countries, including Egypt, China, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. Fertilizer use in the United States is low compared to the European countries, as is true for other large crop producers such as Canada, Australia, and Brazil.

Pesticide Use

Data on pesticide use, including insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and other chemicals is scarce. Similar to fertilizer use, pesticide use is the highest in the United States followed by the European countries, and Australia. Pesticide use per hectare is much higher than in other developed countries because farmers are trying to maximize the yield per hectare. Among developing countries pesticide use is also high in Egypt, Brazil, and Pakistan. The trend in developing countries is for more use of chemicals in agriculture to increase yield per hectare.

Machinery Use

Machinery use has followed a similar pattern to fertilizer use, with the largest increases occurring in developing countries and smaller increases or declines in developed countries. The data do not reflect changes in quality or complexity of agricultural machinery. The relative intensity of use is highest in Japan followed by the European countries. Machinery use in the United States is much lower than in Europe and has remained steady because the average farm is much larger in the United States, which translates into better utilization of farm equipment. Machinery use increased in all developing countries. Growth has been rapid in Pakistan, Indonesia, and India, followed by Japan. In the developing countries, machinery use per hectare is lowest in Bangladesh and highest in Egypt.

Roger Conway Hosein Shapouri

See also:Biological Energy Use, Ecosystem Functioning of; Chemical Energy, Historical Evolution of the Use of; Nitrogen Cycle.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dovring, F. (1988). Farming for Energy: The Political Economy of Energy Sources in the United States. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. (1977). The State of Food and Agriculture, 1976, pp. 79–110. Rome: United Nations.

Food and Agricultural Organization Homepage. (1999). Data on Production, Trade, and Agricultural Inputs. Rome: United Nations.

International Energy Agency. (1998). Energy Statistics and Balances of OECD and Non-OECD Counties, 1995-96. Paris: United Nations

Stanhill, G. (1984). Energy and Agriculture. Germany: Springer-Verlag.

Stout, B. A. (1979). Energy for World Agriculture. Rome: United Nations.

Stout, B. A. (1984). Energy Use and Management in Agriculture.North Scituate, MA: Breton Publishers.

U.S. Congress. (1991). Energy in Developing Countries. Office of Technology Assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. (1997). Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators, 1996–97.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

World Bank. (1998). World Development Indicators, 1998. Washington, DC: Author.

Macmillan Encyclopedia of Energy

Agriculture

views updated Jun 27 2018

Agriculture

Agriculture, the deliberate raising of plants and animals to enhance and secure food production, evolved in the Near East about 10,000 years ago. It was this transition from hunting-gathering to settled agriculture that created civilization as we know it and led to a rapid increase in the human population from about five to six million at that time to six billion in 2000. Although the term agriculture literally means field cultivation, in a broader context it

implies the conversion of natural to managed ecosystems in order to produce adequate and continual food supply.

Traditional Agricultural Systems

Demands for an increase in food production were initially met by expanding the area being cultivated or horizontal expansion. The cropland area increased from 265 million hectares (Mha) prior to the Industrial Revolution in 1700 to 1,500 Mha in 1980, representing an increase of 5.7 times in less than three centuries. (One hectare equals 2.47 acres.) The scarcity of new land for crop production necessitated increasing crop production per unit area and time from the same land. This need for agricultural intensification, or vertical expansion, has been satisfied by the use of chemical fertilizers, supplemental irrigation, improved cultivars, and intensive cropping systems.

Soil fertility refers to reserves of plant nutrients (e.g., N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Zn, Cu, Mo, S, and B) in the root zone and their availability to cultivated plants in accord with physiological needs. Most ancient civilizations evolved on soils with built-in fertility rejuvenation mechanisms. These included alluvial soils along the floodplains of major rivers (e.g., the Nile, Indus, Euphrates, and Tigris) or loess soils with a continuous source of plant nutrients through wind-blown materials (e.g., the Loess Plateau of China). With an increase in population, agriculture expanded into other regions where the nutrient supply was not renewed on a regular basis by flood water or wind deposits. In regions with adequate water supply, nutrients stored in the forest biomass were released for crop production through the "slash and burn" method. Soil fertility was restored by land rotation or shifting cultivation in which a short cultivation period of two to three years was followed by long fallow or a rest period of fertility restoration. The land was used extensively and productivity was low.

In these systems, farms were small and based on mixed farming systems with the close integration of crops with livestock. This involved the incorporation of hay or meadows in the rotation cycle. Crop residues and hay were fed to livestock and manure redistributed on the land.

With the wide availability of fertilizers since World War II, farms in North America and other developed economies have become larger, leading to the increased predominance of monoculture and the elimination of hay and meadows from the rotation cycle. Animal production operations have become specialized, based on feedlot, creating a problem of manure management on the one hand and depletion of soil organic carbon (SOC) stock on the other.

Soil Fertility Enhancement by Chemical Fertilizers

The use of supplemental nutrients to increase crop yield started as trial and error in the form of wood ashes, ground bones, salt peter, and gypsum. Justus von Liebig (1803–1873), a German chemist, laid the foundation for the use of chemical fertilizers as a source of plant nutrients starting in 1840. He recognized the importance of various mineral elements derived from the soil in plant nutrition and the necessity of replacing those elements in order to maintain soil fertility. Two British scientists, J.B. Lawes and J.H. Gilbert, in turn established the agricultural experiment station at Rothamsted, in the United Kingdom. They built on the work of Liebig and experimentally demonstrated the importance of chemical fertilizers in improving and maintaining soil fertility. In fact, the application of synthetic fertilizers was the basis of the global increase in agricultural production after World War II.

Global fertilizer use was merely 27 million tons in 1959 and 1960; it increased five times to 141 million metric tons over the forty-year period ending in 2000. The projected fertilizer demand for the year 2020 is 220 million metric tons. Intensive fertilizer use on input-responsive cultivars grown on prime irrigated land was the basis of the green revolution in South Asia and elsewhere that saved millions from hunger and malnutrition. As the world population increases and cropland becomes more valuable, total cropland acreage is beginning to diminish, increasing the reliance on fertilizer.

Similar to fertilizer use, there has also been a rapid increase in global pesticide use. In fact, much of the success of the green revolution depended on the use of pesticides. Global pesticide use was four million tons in 1970, five million tons in 1985, and six million tons in 2001. As much as 85 percent of all pesticides are used in agriculture. The misuse of pesticides can cause severe environmental problems, especially in developing countries. It is estimated that chemical pollution in agriculture costs about $100 billion in diverse public health and environmental damage each year worldwide. The health risks are due to a lack of or inadequate occupational and other safety standards, insufficient enforcement, poor labeling, illiteracy, and insufficient knowledge about the hazards of pesticides and fertilizers.

Supplemental irrigation has been used to raise crops in arid regions since 9500 to 8000 b.c.e.Irrigated agriculture developed in the Middle East, South Asia, China, and in Central and South America. Irrigation played a major role in increasing food production during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Irrigated land area had expanded to 275 Mha by 1998. Worldwide, 17 percent of irrigated cropland produces 40 percent of the world's food.

The leakage of fertilizers into the environment adversely impacts water quality (i.e., nonpoint source pollution) and exacerbates the greenhouse effect (i.e., emission of N2O and NOx ). Fertilizer use efficiency can be enhanced by the adoption of conservation tillage and incorporation of cover crops in the rotation cycle. Cover crops include grass species sown between the main crops to improve soil quality and increase the SOC pool, or leguminous crops that enhance soil fertility through biological nitrogen fixation. Species of Graminaceae and Cruciferae are nitrate catch crops and produce biosolids/residues to be used as mulch. Nitrate catch crops minimize the leaching of nitrates available in the soil, and undersown catch crops are more efficient than those established after the harvest of main crops.

Agriculture and the Environment

Inappropriate land use, soil mismanagement (especially the practice of plowing and growing monoculture with the subsequent need for large amounts of pesticides), and the adoption of fertility-mining practices can have adverse impacts on the environment, including the eutrophication of surface water, contamination of ground water, and emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from agricultural ecosystems into the atmosphere. Processes that lead to environmental pollution include accelerated erosion, leaching, volatilization, mineralization of organic matter, methanogenesis , and denitrification. These processes are accentuated by the conversion of natural to agricultural ecosystems, biomass burning, plowing and other excessive soil disturbance, indiscriminate use of fertilizers and other farm chemicals such as pesticides and herbicides, and drainage of wetlands. Nonetheless, these activities were deemed necessary to increase agricultural productivity to meet the demands of an increased population during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Intensive Commercial Agriculture in Developed Countries. Agricultural pollution in developed countries such as the United States is caused by the excessive use of chemicals. In the United States, the use of synthetic pesticides since 1945 has grown thirty-three-fold to about 0.5 billion kilograms (kg) per year or 3 kg per hectare per year. Further, the increase in hazard is even greater than it might appear because the toxicity of modern pesticides has increased by more than ten-fold over those pesticides used in the early 1950s. U.S. data show that 18 percent of all pesticides and about 90 percent of all fungicides are carcinogenic. In addition to humans, thousands of domestic animals are also poisoned by pesticides in the United States. The destruction of natural predators and parasites is costing the nation more than $500 million each year and resulting in the development of pesticide resistance. Ground and surface water contamination from pesticides is a serous issue. The excessive use of fertilizers and plowing can cause the eutrophication of water and transport sediment-borne chemicals into surface water. The average fertilizer use is about 100 kg per hectare per year in North America and 200 kg per hectare per year in western Europe. If use efficiency is less than 60 percent, a large proportion of the fertilizer applied ends up in surface and ground waters, or as a gaseous emission (N2O and NO2) into the atmosphere.

Low-Input Agriculture in Developing Countries. The shifting cultivation and related bush-fallow systems, practiced in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere in the tropics, rely on cycling nutrients accumulated in vegetation and the soil surface during the fallow period. Deforestation and biomass burning emit large quantities of particulate matter and GHGs into the atmosphere. Further, the mineralization of SOC to release plant-available nutrients (e.g., N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Zn, etc.) gives off CO2 and other GHGs into the atmosphere. The release of 50 kg of N per hectare through the decomposition of soil organic mater would lead to the emission of 500 kg of CO2-C, if we assume a conservative C:N ratio of 10:1. The problem is drastically exacerbated by accelerated soil erosion, which is a widespread problem due to harsh climate and fragile soils. Soil nutrient depletion at a continental scale continues to be a major problem in Africa, with severe economic and environmental consequences. The average annual nutrient loss on arable land in Africa was 22 kg N per hectare, 2.5 kg P per hectare, and 15 kg K per hectare.

Intensive Agriculture in Developing Economies. The rapidly growing human population in Asia (particularly in the southern or eastern regions of the continent) has jeopardized the environment and natural resources, which are already under great stress. Consequently, off-farm input (e.g., fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation, plowing) plays an important role in food production in India, China, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. In India, approximately 59 million kg of pesticides are applied to agriculture annually. The average rate of fertilizer application in East Asia is 240 kg per hectare per year. Because of N subsidies, for example, farmers apply the cheap N pesticide and do not consider using the more expensive but less toxic P and K products. Consequently, there is a nutrient mining of soil in intensive rice-wheat areas. Further, highly soluble chemicals are quickly leached into the ground water. India is one of only two countries worldwide (along with the United States) to have applied more than 100,000 tons of dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane (DDT) since its initial formulation. Because of the excessive and indiscriminate use of pesticides in India, the total intake of organochemicals per person in that country is the highest in the world.

Despite the problems outlined here, the adoption of recommended agricultural practices (RMPs) can enhance food production with minimal risks to the environment. In addition to the use of improved varieties responsive to input, RMPs include conservation-till or no-till farming involving cover crops in the rotation cycle, integrated nutrient management based on a judicious use of chemical fertilizers in combination with manures and other biosolids, precision farming to apply nutrient and chemicals based on soil-specific needs, soil-water management through drip irrigation/fertilization, or subirrigation through controlled water table management, etc. The objective is agricultural intensification on existing land. It means cultivating the best soil with the best management practices to produce the optimum sustainable yield and save agriculturally marginal lands for nature conservancy.

Sustainable Agriculture

There are numerous, diverse, and increasing demands on agriculture in the twenty-first century. In addition to meeting the demands for the economic production of food, feed, fiber, and fuel, agriculture of the twenty-first century must also address environmental concerns, especially in regard to water quality and the accelerated greenhouse effect. Soil is a biofilter, and a reduction in the thickness of the topsoil layer through erosion has a direct negative effect on the buffering and filtering capacity of the soil and on the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Soil erosion preferentially removes soil organic matter because it is light and is concentrated in the surface layer. A large fraction of the C thus displaced by water runoff may be prone to mineralization, leading to its emission into the atmosphere as CO2. It is estimated that globally 1.1 billion tons of C may be emitted annually as CO2 because of displacement by water erosion. In addition, some of the organic matter deposited in depressional sites and aquatic ecosystems may lead to the emission of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). In comparison to CO2, the global warming potential is twenty-one for CH4 and 310 for N2O.

Sustainable agriculture, therefore, is a viable production system based on environmentally benign agricultural practices. The objective of sustainable agriculture is to enhance and sustain production while improving soil fertility, soil tilth, and soil health. While enhancing production, sustainable agriculture must also address environmental issues with regard to water quality and the greenhouse effect. Rather than being the cause, improved agriculture is a solution to certain environmental problems.

Sustainable agriculture implies profitable farming on a continuous basis while preserving the natural resource base. It is not synonymous with low-input, organic, or alternative agriculture. In some cases, low input may sustain profitable and environmentally sound farming. In others, it might not. The addition of organic amendments might enhance soil quality, but may not eliminate the need for the judicious use of fertilizers. Large quantities (10 to 20 ton/hectare/year) of organic manures are needed to supply enough nutrients to produce the desired yields. Therefore, the use of organic manures, although desirable, may not be logistically feasible. In sub-Saharan Africa, low inputs on impoverished soils and low yields have been responsible for low standards of living, severe malnutrition, and widespread problems of soil and environmental degradation. Therefore, the adoption of RMPs is a necessary prerequisite to feeding the earth's expected ten billion inhabitants by the year 2100. Judicious management includes the conversion of marginal agricultural soils to restorative land use and adoption of RMPs. Technological options differ among soils, ecoregions, and social and cultural settings, but the underlying basic principles remain the same.

see also Carver, George Washington; Cryptosporidosis; Green Revolution; Integrated Pest Management; Pesticides.

Bibliography

bumb, b.l., and baanante, c.a. (1996). "the role of fertilizer in sustaining food security and protecting the environment to 2020." ifpri, food, agriculture and the environment discussion paper 17, washington, dc.

evans, l.t. (1998). feeding the ten billion: plants and population growth. cambridge, uk: cambridge university press.

fao. (1996). the production yearbook. rome: italy.

fao. (1999a). the production yearbook. rome: italy.

fao. (1999b). "the state of food and agriculture." paper presented at 30th session of the fao conference, november 12–23, 1999, rome, italy.

fao. (1999c). "assessment of the world food security situation." report cfs: 99/2 presented at the 25th session of the committee on world food security, may 2–31,1999, rome, italy.

fao. (2000). the production yearbook. rome: italy.

field, w. (1990). "world irrigation." irrigation and drainage systems 4:91–107.

framji, k.k., and mahajan, i.k. (1969). irrigation and drainage in the world. new

delhi, india: caxton press.

hyams, e. (1952). soil and civilization. london: thames and hudson.

ifdc. (1979). fertilizer manual. muscle shoals, al.

ifdc. (1999). global and regional data on fertilizer production and consumption 1961–62 to 1997–98. muscle shoals, al.

jauhar, p.p., and khush, g.s. (2002). "importance of biotechnology in global food security." in food security and environment quality in the developing world, edited by r. lal, d.o. hansen, n. uphoff, and s. slack. boca raton, fl: crc press, pp. 105–126l.

lal, r. (1995). "global soil erosion by water and carbon dynamics." in soils and global change, edited by r. lal, j.m. kimble, e. levine, and b.a. stewart. boca raton, fl: crc press, pp. 131–141.

lal, r. (2002). "soil and human society." in encyclopedia of soil science, edited by r. ral. new york: marcel dekker, pp. 663–666.

lowdermilk, w.c. (1953). conquest of the land through 7000 years. washington, dc: usda-scs.

myers, w.b. (1996). human impact on the earth. cambridge, uk: cambridge university press.

pimentel, d. (1996). "green revolution agriculture and chemical hazards." the science of the total environment 188 supplement: s86–s98.

pimentel, d. (2002). "agricultural chemicals and the environment." in food security and environmental quality in the developing world, edited by r. lal, d.o. hansen, n. uphoff, and s. slack. boca raton, fl: crc/lewis publishers, pp. 205–213.

postel, s. (1999). pillar of sand: can the irrigation miracle last? new york: w.w. norton.

scherr, s. (1999). "soil degradation: a threat to developing country's food security." ifpri discussion paper 7, washington, dc.

stoorvogel, j.j., smaling, e.m.a., and janssen, b.h. (1993). "calculating soil nutrient balances in africa at different scales. i. supra-national scale." fertilizer research 35:227–335.

struever, s. (1971). prehistoric agriculture. garden city, ny.

tandrich, j.p. (2002). "history to early-mid 20th century". in encyclopedia of soil science, edited by r. lal. new york: marcel dekker, pp. 659–662.

williams, m. (1994). "forests and tree cover." in changes in land use and land cover: a global perspective, edited by w.b. meyer and b.l. turner ii. new york: cambridge university press, pp. 97–123.

Rattan Lal

CAFOs or Concentrated animal feeding operations pose major environmental risks because of the large quantities of animal waste that they produce. A 10,000-hog CAFO produces as much waste in a single day as a town of 25,000 people. In 1997, a toxic algae called Pfiesteria, linked to manure from giant chicken factories, polluted the waters of the Chesapeake Bay, killed thousands of fish, sickened more than a dozen people, and put the bay's entire seafood industry at risk. Pfiesteria has been implicated in more than 50 percent of the fish kills in North Carolina coastal waters.

Organic farming is the raising of crops and products using natural fertilizers and cultural and biological pest management. It excludes the use of synthetic chemicals in crop production and prohibits the use of antibiotics and hormones in livestock production. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) implemented national organic standards on organic production and processing in October 2002 and products meeting those standards are "certified organic." USDA reports in 2002 that about 1 percent of oats, dry beans, tomatoes, grapes, and citrus were grown organically and about 2 percent of dry peas and lentils, 3 percent of apples, 4 percent of carrots, and 5 percent of lettuce was organic.

Raising poultry is big industry on Maryland's Eastern Shore, but there's a problem. The 600 million birds annually create about 800,000 tons of chicken manure. They may soon be creating electricity. Environmentalists, the poultry industry and local officials are enthusiastically studying plans to build a 40-megawatt power plant that would burn chicken manure mixed with wood shavings to generate electricity. Fibrowatt, the British company making the proposal, already operates three poultry-manure-powered generating plants in England and is currently building a plant in Minnesota to be powered by turkey manure.

Pollution A to Z Lal, Rattan