Paper for the session “Storage of Staple Food and Commercial Networks from the late Middle Ages to
the Twentieth Century (Part 2)” at the Rural History Conference in Girona, Spain, September 2015.
Storage and Commercial Networks in southern Sweden during the
Agricultural Revolution1
Mats Olsson and Patrick Svensson
Dept. of Economic History, Lund University, Sweden
[email protected] and [email protected]
Abstract
From grain surplus regions in southern Sweden grain was shipped to other parts of Sweden during
the eighteenth century and, with increasing quantities produced during the agricultural revolution,
also abroad to markets in the Netherlands and England. This paper sets out to map and analyze
storage practices and the commercial network during this period using unique sources on micro-level
for the potential storage keepers: the farmers, the merchants and the state. We focus on the
province of Scania around 1800 and by using several thousands of individual excise notes, issued
each time a farmer delivered grain to a town, we can estimate the average time the farmer stored
grain from harvest to delivery to a merchant. Following this dating and using shipment records we
will also be able to calculate the time grain was stored at the merchant houses in the towns. The
paper provides a complete chain from the farmer’s barn to the export in terms of storage and
organization of trade during a phase of increased commercialization.
1
This paper is written within the project “Two very different ways? Agrarian reforms, markets, and agricultural
growth in Germany and Sweden 1750-1880” financed by the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet).
1
Introduction
The question of storage in pre-industrial Europe has been vividly debated and approached from
different angles within economic history. The discussion has mainly concerned the storage of grain
(wheat or other crops) and focused on three different actors, the producer, the trade- and
middleman and the state. A fourth actor, the consumer, sometimes identical to any of the three first
actors, can also be added to this.
As for the producers, previous research has analyzed the occurrence and importance of storage as
insurance. While Fenoaltea (1976) argued that grain storage was used as insurance against harvest
failures already in medieval times, and onwards, McCloskey and Nash (1984) opposed this view,
mainly because they found it too costly. It was instead scattering of plots that made out the way to
insure and risk-minimize according to them. This debate was followed up by for example Komlos and
Landes (1991) who argued that very low quantities of grain was stored, but this was not due to the
level of the interest rates but to low productivity.
Clark (2014) on the other hand argued that a well-functioning grain market led to less need for
insurance in storing and that local specialization and market forces implied speculative storage, both
within the year, and between years. Year-to-year storage became more frequent over time as
interest rates fell and this involved both producers and traders. He looks at England and in contrast
to this studies of late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century grain merchant firms indicate
that storage was less frequent, mainly due to risks involved being large in respect to total firm capital
(Fridlizius 1981; Sandgren, 2010).
Following this non-settled dispute, all actors could have good reasons to store grain, distinguishable
by three causes.
1. Necessary storage. Certain storage is indispensable in all cases and contexts since producers
cannot immediately sell everything they produce, traders cannot immediately sell forward
everything they buy and consumers cannot immediately consume everything they buy (or
produce themselves).
2. Speculative storage. All groups could have incentives to store grains for speculation if prices
fluctuated over seasons and years. In the producer and trader case that is selling when price
peaks, in the consumer case the other way around.
3. Insurance storage. Storage could be used as an insurance against future deficit, e.g. due to
harvest failures, and this applies to the producers, consumers and to the state, which in
order to protect its citizens from starvation could demand or organize storage institutions.
Since there always is a price for grain storage – grain decay, costs for building and maintaining
warehouses, loss of interest – we would expect that all parties tried to minimize their storage caused
by practical necessity. Thus, after identifying these practicalities, the storage residual can be
attributed to either speculation or insurance.
The aim of this paper is to study the level and nature of storage for grain producers and traders in a
preindustrial society by calculating the actual stock times and comparing it with necessary storage.
To enable this we use a variety of sources, such as toll excise notes and shipment registers, for the
final decades of the eighteenth century. The main area of investigation is Malmö, which was the
2
major port in south Sweden, and its agrarian hinterland, but we compare the results with other
towns in south Sweden, where sources are available.
Historical setting and area
From at least the mid-seventeenth century, Sweden had to rely on grain imports to cover subsistence
needs within the country. Nevertheless, some regions in Sweden were surplus regions in terms of
grain production. This adheres particularly to the most southern province of Scania where grain was
shipped to other parts of Sweden during the eighteenth century and, with the increasing quantities
produced during the agricultural revolution from the first half of the nineteenth century, also abroad
to markets in the Netherlands and England. The grain was produced on farms whose farmers
transported it to the coastal towns where merchants took over and shipped it outside the province.
In terms of storage very little has been studied for this growing commercial network (see Fridlizius
1981).
Scania saw a sharp increase in grain production, starting in the 1790s and throughout the first part of
the nineteenth century. Most of the land was tilled by peasant farmers, either owner occupiers or
tenants, but a growing portion of land was farmed as manorial demesnes, this part increased from
one tenth to a quarter of the region’s total acreage 1800–1850. All kinds of producers took part in
grain sales during the period, although the manorial landlords were earlier commercialized in a more
pervasive way, still following a micro-mercantilist pattern: Selling as much as possible and buying as
little as possible. The main crop in the area was barley, followed by rye, oats and peas.
Necessary storage for producers
Around the year 1800 the producers were of two main categories, peasant farmers and manorial
landlords, the former with a growing surplus production for market sales, the latter market oriented
at least since the sixteenth century. The grain harvest season was August and September, but before
selling, the producers had to deal with two more tasks: threshing and transport.
The threshing season could start immediately after harvests, but that was busy days and manual
threshing was work intensive, so the season typically started when all the crops were harvested late
in September and then continued into and sometimes throughout the winter. The manors used to
hire professional threshers but the peasant farmers had to rely on the family farm’s normal work
force, farmhands supplemented by cottagers. Working with flails was typically a pairwise job, and
two men could thresh two 165-liter barrels in one day, which is roughly 200 kg (Myrdal, Betingsläror
156-157). The total grain production from an average peasant farm in south Sweden 1797–1809 was
5,820 kg (Olsson & Svensson forthcoming, assuming an average grain weight of 0.61 kg/liter). This
leaves us with 32.5 threshing days for two men, which implies that the whole harvest theoretically
could be threshed in one and a half month, thus until around mid-October. But this would require
that most other farming activities were put aside or hiring extra farmhands. However, the whole
harvest was not to be sold, the household, the farm animals, and the seed for the coming year
consumed almost half, 2,640 kg, calculated after average peasant farmer household size 1790–1810
(Olsson & Svensson 2009). That leaves us with 3,160 kilos of grain for market sales. Given other tasks
3
as well, a substantial part of this volume could definitely be threshed without to much extra
expenses, until mid-November.
It was always up to the agrarian producers to transport their sales themselves, from the farm to the
buyer. Transport firms did not exist in Sweden at that time, at least not for massive deliveries from
the countryside, nor did the townsmen have any capacity for such transports. The grain buyer was
most often a tradesman in the nearest shipping town, a one way trip of normally 15-40 kilometers
for the producer. A late eighteenth century wagon with iron axis and two horses could normally take
300-400 kilos on such a trip; a figure which corresponds well with the median grain load to Malmö at
that period (see below). Thus, it only took two days to thresh what was needed for a first optimal
load of grains to be carried to town. But the trip had to be done with the farm’s own draught
animals, and during early autumn they were badly needed for bringing in the rest of the harvest and
for ploughing.
The conclusion from this is that it was theoretically possible for the producers to start deliver grains
only a few days after harvest. But the price for immediate threshing and shipping was either neglect
of other harvest and autumn works at the farm, or hiring extra people. This could in the normal case
be too costly, not least in awareness that the slack season was around the corner. Consequently, it is
more likely that the average necessary storage time for a three ton sales grain producer was about
two months, until late October or early November.
Now let us see for how long the producers really stored their grain. Until the year 1810 there was an
internal toll in Sweden called Landtullen or Lilla tullen (the Land Toll or Small Toll). All trade had to go
through a town and every town had a wall or fence with gates were customs were paid, day by day,
carriage by carriage. A part of the duties was a consumption tax on grain, which the distributer paid
at the gate against a receipt, and then reclaimed from the buyer. If the grain eventually was
redistributed outside town, the tradesman was compensated for this fee, by showing the original
receipt. For a few Swedish towns these excise notes have been saved for some years between 1795
and 1810, among them Malmö. We have randomly collected 3,278 excise notes for this period,
representing a substantial part of Malmö’s total inflow of grain. 2
2
For a more elaborated description of the sample, see Bergenfeldt 2014, 111–116.
4
Figure 1. Grain deliveries to Malmö 1795–97 and 1808–09, percent per month.
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Sources: Centrala tullräkenskaper, landstullen och accisen, Kammararkivet, Riksarkivet, Stockholm
Figure 2. Cereals and peas deliveries to Malmö 1795–97 and 1808–09, batches of 20 barrels or more,
barrels per months
900
800
700
600
500
Cereals
400
Peas
300
200
100
0
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
6
7
Sources: Centrala tullräkenskaper, landstullen och accisen, Kammararkivet, Riksarkivet, Stockholm
Figure 1 shows a growing flow of grain during the autumn and early winter, with a marked peak in
December, still high levels in late winter and early spring, but less from April and in summer. The
median grain load was three barrels, with a weight of 300–400 kilos. More than 95 percent of the
deliveries were performed by peasant farmers with such quantities, but there were also some other
suppliers, namely three groups: manorial estates, priests and merchants. Out of 74 deliveries which
contained 20 barrels or above, 50 come from these groups and the 5 largest (above 100 barrels)
exclusively from manorial estates. These larger batches show a different pattern than the normal
sized, in terms of distribution over the year. In terms of cereals they are much more evenly
5
distributed between the months, but the somewhat puzzling peak in August in Figure 1 is here
explained by the early harvest and delivery of peas from the estates. During the whole year, peas
constituted 13 percent of the inflow to Malmö, during August 74 percent. The average storage
duration of peas was in this case minimal, from the harvest in July until the peak delivery in August.
But turning to the cereals again, it is obvious that the big landowners stored more, and for longer
periods.
Figure 3. Grain deliveries to Simrishamn and Ystad 1795–96, percent per month.
40%
35%
30%
25%
Simrishamn
20%
Ystad
15%
10%
5%
0%
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Sources: Calculated from Hanssen 1952, p. 327.
For three other towns in south Sweden we can calculate the distribution of inflow of grain for this
period. Figure 3 shows the deliveries to two nearby towns in the harvest year 1795, and is based on
the same sources, the excise notes. It differs from Malmö in that there were practically no deliveries
in August, the sample is here somewhat smaller and it contains only one year, which can explain the
variation between the month, but the overall pattern is not far from Malmö’s with peaks during the
winter months and almost no deliveries after March.
Looking more in detail on the time the producers kept their grain, we start by analyzing Malmö. The
average storage time, from harvest to delivery was 131 days for grain (not including the massive
deliveries of peas in August and September), i.e. by mid-January. 3 Following our initial discussion on
threshing where we estimated that the harvest in theory could have been threshed by midNovember we now see that around 21 to 22 per cent of the harvest had been delivered at that time.
The finding indicates that the opportunity cost of devoting much time for threshing was relatively
high during September and October, postponing some of it until the winter months. Alternatively,
the producers threshed everything and then kept it for some reason for later delivery; this is
however less likely from a work organization perspective for the Scanian farms.
3
Weighting each barrel delivered by its share of total deliveries and multiply this with the number of days since
harvest (assumed to be September 1) we end up with the weighted average of 131 days, i.e. January 12.
Making the same calculation for Malmö, Simrishamn and Ängelholm together results in 144 days, i.e. January
25.
6
But, adding to threshing, we must also consider transports in themselves. Given that most transports
were of three barrels it means that for the average producer, producing 3,160 kilos for sale i.e. 32
barrels, he had to go to town ten times with his deliveries. Each trip must have taken at least one day
resulting in ten days, most probably spread out over time, for transports. Hypothetically then, if the
producer devoted half of full-time for threshing, and transported the grain once a week, the average
producer would have been able to deliver all his grain by early December, which is a month earlier
than when half of all grain was in fact delivered.
Necessary storage among the middlemen
Malmö was the largest town in Scania and by 1770 it had 4 800 inhabitants, which grew to around
5 400 in the year 1800. Although the town itself had agricultural land, the needs for its population
had to be supplied mostly by its hinterland, the Scanian plains. However, given that the population
needed on average two barrels of grain per year, which is what an adult male is estimated to have
consumed (Hanssen, 1952:343), and that the shipment of grain from its port consisted of around
40 000 barrels per year in the 1770s (Åmark, 1915:20), at least four out of five barrels brought into
the town was designated for other destinations. 4
Most of the grain that entered the town was thus delivered to the town merchants for sales outside
Malmö. For Sweden at large prohibition for exports of grain was introduced after the famine of the
early 1650s (Myrdal 1999:244). This was upheld until the late 1820s with only minor exceptions.
When Sweden conquered the province of Scania in 1658 this was introduced also there and from the
late seventeenth century the grain surplus from the province was shipped to areas of Sweden
experiencing grain deficits. However, the precise destinations were not decided upon by the state
but by the individual merchants in the towns, following market incentives. The highest average prices
seem to have been along the west coast of Sweden. Ports like Uddevalla, Marstrand and
Gothenburg, the second largest town in Sweden, had on average around 20 per cent higher autumn
prices on grain as compared to Stockholm prices in the period 1757-1772, whereas in Scania prices
were around 15 per cent below those of Stockholm for the same period. 5 Almost all grain that was
shipped out of Malmö reached these west coast destinations. In the 1760s it was only a fraction, less
than 10 per cent, which was transported to the two large towns on the east coast, Stockholm and
Norrköping, and negligible amounts to other destinations (Borgerskapet i Malmö archive).
4
Since children and elderly are estimated to have needed only one barrel per year, four out of five barrels is a
low estimate.
5
Åmark, 1915: 50-51.
7
Map 1. Average autumn prices for rye in Sweden, 1757-1772, index with Stockholm as 100.
Note: The red circle is Malmö. The orange circles are the towns where most grain from Malmö went.
The green circles are the two largest towns on the east coast.
Source: Map from Åmark (1915:51)
The grain brought into Malmö by the producers was thus mainly handled by the grain merchants in
the town for further transports within Sweden. The merchants themselves hired different private
shippers, either to transport only their grain or sometimes handling grain from more than one
merchant (Malmö Burghers’ archive).
To be able to estimate storage time and to discuss the necessary, speculative and insurance parts of
this time, we need to acquire information on when the grain was shipped out. This information is
found in the Malmö Burghers’ archives, listing all ships that departed Malmö each year, what cargo
8
they brought, and from which merchant the cargo originated. Unfortunately we have only been able
to collect this for the 1760s and not for the exact same period as the information on grain deliveries
to Malmö. 6 Even so, this will give us a detailed picture of the seasonal distribution of grain transports
from Malmö for a period where, as said, 80 percent of grain coming into Malmö was re-directed to
other parts of Sweden.
We have collected information for three harvest years in the 1760s and the total volume shipped out
varied between 32 000 and 41 000 barrels per harvest year, i.e. close to the information given by
Åmark (1915:20) on 40-50 000 barrels per year in the early 1770s. 7 The grain was transported by on
average 226 ships per year containing on average 160 barrels per ship, mostly consisting of malt
(over 75 per cent of the grain) but also of barley, rye, oats and peas. The ships used varied
substantially in size, from around 2 läster to over 80 läster, with one läst indicating around 2 500
kilos loading capacity. 8
In figure 6 we can follow the seasonal distribution of the shipments, i.e. the share of total barrels
transported per month. It is clear that the outflow of grain increased during the autumn being
highest in November and December. During the winter months no ships left Malmö so by the end of
March/beginning of April a peak in the yearly transports of grain occurred. A relatively high share of
shipments also took place in May and June, while the later summer months were less busy. Putting
this pattern together, it shows that almost half the grain was shipped in the spring, with April as the
main month, and a little bit more than a quarter in November and December (see table 1). From
table 1 we can also see that a similar pattern of out shipment from Malmö prevailed sixty years later,
comparing these figures with Fridlizius’ investigation for the 1820s, although the distribution over the
year seems to have leveled out somewhat.
Table 1. Seasonal distribution of grain shipments from Malmö in the 1760s and the 1820s
1762-63
1767-68
1768-69
Sep-Oct
10%
8%
16%
Nov-Dec
24%
33%
27%
Late Mar-June
54%
43%
46%
Jul-Aug
12%
16%
11%
1760s average
11%
28%
48%
13%
1820s average
16%
19%
44%
19%
Source: Borgerskapet i Malmö arkiv, Tolags och bropenningsspecialer. 1820s: Fridlizius 1981, p. 382.
6
This is mainly due to the Tolag and Bropenningspecialer archive series ending in 1769, so the records for the
later years, which should exist, are probably gathered in another for us so far unknown archival series.
7
Åmark based his number on a figure given by the town council to the county governor in spring 1773.
8
The average ship size then had to be around 7 läster (17 500 kilos) managing the 161 barrels of 165 liters and
grain weight 0.61 kilo per liter (16 100 kilos).
9
Figure 6. Ship transports of grain from Malmö for three harvest years, share of barrels per month (%)
25
20
15
1762-63
1767-68
10
1768-69
5
0
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Source: Borgerskapet i Malmö arkiv, Tolags och bropenningsspecialer.
Figure 7. Inflow and outflow of grain in Malmö, share of barrels per month (%).
25%
20%
15%
In
Out
10%
5%
0%
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Source: See figure 1 and 6. The outflow is the average for the three harvest years in figure 6.
Making the same kind of calculation as for the deliveries to Malmö, i.e. the time from harvest
(September 1) to shipment out of Malmö, the average time is 192 days. This is roughly 60 days higher
than the average time for deliveries to Malmö, 131 days. So on average grain was shipped out two
months after it was delivered. Some of this time is of course due to almost no shipments occurring in
January and February.
The seasonal shipments can also be compared to the inflow of grain to the merchants, and not to
harvest. First, making an unrealistic assumption that if all grain that came in was put on ships for
further destinations the same month it came in, the in- and outflow would be the same each month.
10
Looking at figure 7 it is clear that this was not the case. One explanation for this is of course that no
ships sailed from early January to late March, a time for necessary storage. But even so, as can be
seen not all grain that came in during the autumn was transported then. Some of it was stored for
later transports. Also the relatively large shares shipped in May, and as late as June and July, points
to a speculative behavior among merchants.
Second, from previous studies on grain merchants it is obvious that before sending the grain they
arranged sales by contacting agents in different towns to assess the prices and demand at these
locations (Fridlizius, 1981; Sandgren, 2010). They also needed to arrange the transport of the
incoming grain, contracting sailors, adding to the time from delivery to transport out of the town.
Moreover, most of the grain shipped out of Malmö consisted of malt. This implies that grain had to
be malted before being shipped, causing a further lag between delivery from producers and
shipment from Malmö. The duration of the malting process, floor-malting, varied depending on
climate, work organization, and of course accuracy but given the common procedures it would last at
least 20-25 days, probably up to a month (e.g. Briggs 1998:344). Some of the malting took place at
the producers, at the large manors, but for most grain delivered to towns this was taken care of by
the merchants. Together it is therefore more realistic to add a month of necessary storage.
Adding one month to inflow month shows that all grain that was delivered during the autumn was
transported the same season (see figure 8). However, the accumulated inflow coming during the
months when no ships left the port was not transported directly when it was possible to do so.
Rather it was a peak but then a large share was still sent in the summer months of June, July and
August. From August to April 84 per cent of grain entering town had arrived but only 70 per cent of
shipments had been accomplished, so even in this case there seems to have been some speculative
storage.
Figure 8. Inflow (one month later than real inflow) and outflow of grain in Malmö, share of barrels
per month (%).
25%
20%
15%
In (lagged 1 month)
Out
10%
5%
0%
8
9
10 11 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Source: See figure 1 and 6. The outflow is the average for the three harvest years in figure 6.
11
One limiting factor for shipments is of course the number of ships and their loading capacity. This
might affect the possibilities of transporting the accumulated winter inflow directly in April and May.
However, the much lower amount of grain transported in May, as compared to in April, and the
records of ships going out with only ballast during this and the coming months indicate that ships
were not the limiting factor for distributing the grain.
Summarizing this part, the merchants in Malmö sold off most of the grain that came in during the
autumn already the same season. When grain continued to enter the town during the winter,
storage was necessary since no way of transporting it was at hand. After the port opened a
substantial part of this was transported in April but some of it was stored and shipped later during
the summer.
Speculative storage
To move further we need to look at waste during storage and potential profits of storing and
delaying sales. What we need is an estimation of loss through storing, the interest rate and the price
change over the year, and perhaps even between years. As already indicated, the sales were mainly
directed towards areas of relatively high prices on the Swedish west coast, but did the prices vary
over the year?
Previous research has indicated that grain merchants in Sweden did not store grain for speculative
purposes, i.e. that the merchant generally was eager to sell and deliver as soon as possible (Fridlizius,
1981: 377; Sandgren 2010). However, these results mainly originate from statements made by
merchants at specific situations, and mainly for not having to take the costs for storage of the grain
at the destination.
Storage losses could be due to animals, rotting processes, shrinkage/loss at re-loadings etc. It has
been argued that Scanian grain was of lower quality than other Swedish, and imported grain, mainly
due to its high water content (Åmark, 1915: 21). This would make the grain rot faster. The fact that
most barley was malted had to do with several factors: it became more homogenous, it weighed less
than “wet” barley and was therefore cheaper to transport, and it might have been easier to sell. The
demand from brewers might have been directed to malt and not barley, since these were small-scale
companies probably lacking space for malting. What is most relevant here, however, is that by
malting the barley the high water content was lowered and thereby it became easier to store it for
longer periods. 9 By malting the barley, the storage loss was reduced.
The information on inter-year grain price volatility in Sweden during the 1700s and early 1800s is
sparse. A general view has been that “…it is commonly known that the supply of grain was high
during the fall, and that the prices, as a direct consequence were low, but rose, often moderately,
during early spring.” 10 This wisdom does not seem to hold true when compared with the prices of
barley at the Stockholm Exchange, at least not for the years 1840–1860 (Fridlizius 1981: 181-82). The
variation around the average annual price was generally 5 percent up or down during the year and
the only common pattern for these decades is that the prices increased from early September to late
9
By the 1820s and onwards, most barley was transported as non-malted to the large malt-houses in
Stockholm, according to Fridlizius, 1981: 296. Does this imply that enclosures and better soil preparation had
improved the quality of the grain?
10
Hansson 2006, p 42 with reference to Elofson 1947, p 1228ff; our translation.
12
October. Nor does the market price scales variation in Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö for three
years in the late 1850s show any clear pattern. For one of the years, the prices peaked in October,
sank until December/January, to recover until February and March. For the other two years there is
no common pattern for the three cities.
In the preparation of this paper we have only been able to investigate the seasonal variation in grain
prices back to the 1840s. As can be seen in figure 9 and 10, the pattern is far from clear cut here. In
Malmö we have three years with higher during April-June than during September-November, four
years the other way around and one year with even prices. Gothenburg, which was the biggest
destination market for Malmö, show similar figures. The average prices in the two cities were indeed
a few percent higher during spring, but if we take out the extreme year 1846, the average autumn
prices were higher than spring for the other seven years. 11
But from contemporary letters between merchants we know that there was a speculation in price
change over the year. It could be that this was not applicable to general trends over the year; if
everybody withheld their grain until a presumed deficit period during spring, the market would be
flowed by that time, and the prices depressed. If this holds true, speculation in storage did not follow
any seasonal pattern, but was due to each salesmen’s information advantage or pure luck.
Figure 9. Monthly rye prices in Malmö, August 1842 – July 1850 (Riksdaler banko)
22
20
18
1842
16
1843
14
1844
12
1845
10
1846
8
1847
6
1848
4
1849
2
0
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Source: Handlingar rörande landtbruket och dess binäringar, vol 2-10.
11
The prices on barley show a similar pattern in nearby Copenhagen. If we take out 1846, the average prices
were a few percent higher in the autumn in the 1840s and the other way around in the 1850s. Copenhagen
data from Andersson and Ljungberg 2015.
13
Figure 10. Monthly rye prices in Gothenburg, August 1842 – July 1850 (Riksdaler banko)
22
20
18
1842
16
1843
14
1844
12
1845
10
1846
8
1847
6
1848
4
1849
2
0
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Source: Handlingar rörande landtbruket och dess binäringar, vol 2-10.
Conclusion
In this preliminary and first draft we set out to study the organization of the grain trade in southern
Sweden during the late eighteenth century, from harvest to shipment out of towns with a special
focus on storage. We aim at assessing storage times for producers and merchants, and eventually
dividing this time into necessary, speculative, and insurance storage.
The producers mainly consisted of family farmers but also of landlords from larger estates. The
province of Scania was the major surplus area in Sweden and for grain to reach other parts of the
country it needed to be brought to the towns. The producers arranged the transports themselves
and when entering the town toll was paid for the grain. We have used a large sample of excise notes
where grain was noted and by using these we have estimated the frequency of grain deliveries over
the year. Our estimation show that the average storage time among the producers, from harvest to
the grain entered the town was 131 days. The peak in deliveries came during winter, and this might
partly be caused by threshing being spread out over the autumn, due to conflicts with other chores
at the farm, and to transports themselves. Even so, a non-negligible amount, over 25 per cent, was
delivered as late as in February to April. This might indicate some sort of speculative storage,
however, to dwell further into this we need to more in detail study possible arrangements between
merchants and producers, and the price changes over the year. So far, prices seem to vary
differently over the years, in some years autumn prices are higher and in others prices seem to have
increased in the late spring. It would also be interesting to follow-up on year-to-year storage among
the producers, something probably only possible to do for the estates and not for the family farms.
For the next part in the trade chain, the merchants, we know when grain was delivered to them,
from the excise notes discussed above, and by using ship registers we can follow when merchants
14
transported the grain to other destinations. The average time from harvest to transport out of town
was 192 days, which is 60 days longer than the average time for the producers. Part of this is due to
no ships leaving the town, Malmö, during the harshest winter months, and part of it probably
because merchants malted the barley before selling it. However, even with this in mind some grain
was stored until summer and could indicate some degree of speculation. We know already that the
merchants in Scania sent most of their grain to higher price areas within Sweden, but it might also be
so that they saved a part of the delivered grain for speculation. In a further analysis we will study
single shipments destination, dates and prices to see if there are further indications of speculation.
15
Sources
Borgerskapet i Malmö arkiv: Tolags och bropenningsspecialer, 1762, 1763, 1767, 1768 and 1769.
Centrala tullräkenskaper, landstullen och accisen, Kammararkivet, Riksarkivet, Stockholm.
Handlingar rörande landtbruket och dess binäringar, 1843-1876, vol 2-10, Stockholm: Kongl. Svenska
Landtbruks-akademien.
References
Andersson, F.N.G, Ljungberg, J. (2015), Grain Market Integration in the Baltic Sea Region in the
Nineteenth Century, Journal of Economic History, Vol. 75, No. 3, 749-790.
Bergenfeldt, F. (2014), Roads to Market. Transport and Agricultural Change – the case of southern
Sweden, 1750–1850, Lund: Lund Studies in Economic History 66.
Briggs, D. E. (1998), Malts and malting, London: Blackie Academic & Professional.
Clark, G. (2014), “Markets before economic growth: the grain market of medieval England”,
Cliometrica, published online 18 October 2014. DOI 10.1007/s1 1698-014-0117-7.
Elofson, A. (red.), Lantmannens bok, Örebro 1947.
Fridlizius, G. (1981), Handel och sjöfart, Malmö stads historia, part 3, 1820–1870, Malmö: Malmö
stad.
Hanssen, B. (1952), Österlen, Stockholm: Stockholms högskola.
Hansson, G. (2006), Såld spannmål av kyrkotionden. Priser i Östergötland under Sveriges
stormaktstid, Umeå: Umeå studies in Economic History 34.
Myrdal, J. (1996), Betingsläror och arbetsåtgång i lantbruket, in Landbon, ladan och lagen och
hägnaderna, arbetstiden och bygdelaget samt ytterligare 20 agrarhistoriska artiklar, Perlinge, A.
(ed.), Stockholm: Skogs- och lantbruksakademien.
Myrdal, J. (1999). Jordbruket under feodalismen 1000–1700. Stockholm: Natur och Kultur.
Olsson, M. and P. Svensson (2009), Peasant economy - markets and agricultural production in
southern Sweden 1711-1860, in Pinilla, V. (ed.) Markets and Agricultural change in Europe from the
13th to the 20th Century, Turnhout: Brepols publishers.
Olsson, M. and P. Svensson (2010), Agricultural growth and institutions, Sweden 1700–1860,
European Review of Economic History, 14:2, 275–304.
Olsson, M. and P. Svensson (forthcoming). “The Landlord Lag”, under revision to journal.
Sandgren, F. (2010), För allt vad heligt är skicka ej mera spannmål. Spannmålshandel i Norrköping vid
1800-talets början, in Kommers: historiska handelsformer i Norden under 1700- och 1800-talen,
Andersson, G & Nyberg, K (eds.), Uppsala: Swedish Science Press.
16
Åmark, K. (1915). Spannmålshandel och spannmålspolitik i Sverige 1719 – 1830. Stockholm: Isaac
Marcus Boktryckeri-Aktiebolag.
Appendix 1.
So far we have not seen the total grain inflows to any town, the excise notes only report what was
redistributed out of town from the harbor. For two towns, and only for the year 1798, there are
sources which can provide this information. Unfortunately, the figures are not completely
comparable since they contain deliveries from two harvest years, the late deliveries from 1797 and
the early ones for 1798, and the harvest 1797 was much better, about 25 percent above 1798 in
volume (Olsson and Svensson 2010). Not surprisingly, 70 percent of the deliveries to Simrishamn
came January-August that year; as compared to Malmö where only 45 percent of the deliveries came
during those months. Nevertheless, some patterns that we have seen before is confirmed.
September is a weak month and although October peaks in the very small town Ängelholm,
Simrishamn again confirms the significance of later deliveries, November, December, and into the
next year.
Figure A1. Total grain inflow to Ängelholm 1798, barrels per month
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Sources: Centrala tullräkenskaper, landstullen och accisen, Kammararkivet, Riksarkivet, Stockholm
17
Figure A2. Total grain inflow to Simrishamn 1798, barrels per month
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Sources: Calculated from Hanssen 1952, p. 313–324.
18
Appendix 2
Figure A3. Rye prices in Gothenburg, one of the major destinations for Scanian grain, 1842-1849
25
20
1842
1843
15
1844
1845
1846
10
1847
1848
1849
5
0
8
9
10
11
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Source: Handlingar rörande landtbruket och dess binäringar
19