Russian Agriculture in the Last 150 Years of Serfdom
Author(s): Jerome Blum
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Agricultural History, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Jan., 1960), pp. 3-12
Published by: Agricultural History Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3740859 .
Accessed: 26/11/2012 11:19
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Agricultural History Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Agricultural History.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.221 on Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:19:57 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RussunAgriculture
in thelast lSOYearsof Serfdom
JEROME
BLUM
The reignsof PeterI (1689-1725)and of unchangedfrom what it had been for
AlexanderII (1855-1881)markedthe open- centuries.
ing andclosingof an eraof Russianhistory. The backward
stateof farmingwasrecogPeter'sreformsand innovationslaid the nizedand freelycommented
uponby many
foundationfor the transformation
of the competentobservers
amongthe landowning
tsardomof Muscovyinto a modernempire. classandthe bureaucracy
of the era. In the
Russiabecameone of the greatpowersof instructionmanualsdrawn up by great
Europe; her area and populationgrew proprietors
in the firsthalfof the eighteenth
mightily;domesticand foreign trade in- centuryfor the guidanceof their estate
creasedmany times over; factoryindustry managers,
concernwasoftenexpressed
about
was introduced;and Russiancultureand small yields, soil exhaustion,and the inlearningenteredinto the mainstreamof efiRcient
methodsof cultivationusedby the
Europeanthought.Yet, becausePeter'sre- peasants.2Aroundthe middleof the cenformsdid not extendto serfdom,Russiare- turya numberof writers,includingsomeof
maineda "medival"
society.Peterand the the era'smostknowledgeable
men,discussed
rulers who followed him on the throne the shortcomings
of the nation'sagriculture.3
intensifiedthe bonds of serfdom,forced In 1765a groupof noblelandowners,
most
it upon millionswho had been free men, of whomheld importantgovernmentposts
and transformed
othersintothe lessonerous and were close to the throne,formedthe
but still servilesocialcategoryof statepeas- Free EconomicSocietyfor the Encourageants. Serfdombecame,more than it had ment of Agricultureand HouseholdManever beforebeen, the basis of the entire agement.In the Society'smeetings,in the
social order. During the first half of the pagesof its journalthatbeganto appearin
nineteenthcenturyslightameliorations
were 1766,andin theessayssubmitted
in theprize
madein the statusof someof thesepeople. competitions
it conducted,frequentexpresBut not until 1861,in the reignof Alexan- sionwasgivento the dissatisfaction
of landderII, didRussiafreeherbondsmen.Wben lordsandgovernment
officials
withthe existthathappenedthe old order,builtas it was ing conditionsof agriculturalproduction.
upon serfdom, disappearedand Russia Other journals,too, that began to appear
enteredupon a new stagein her troubled aroundthis time,publishedarticleson this
history.
theme.4In the ninetenthcenturythe chorus
Duringthis era fromPeterto Alexander swelled,with men like A. A. Shakhmatov,
the overwhelmingmajority of Russia's one of Russia'sleadingagriculturists,
pointpeoplewere peasantswho earnedtheir liv- ing out to his fellowlandlords
thatthe welings from the soil and paid dues in cash, fareof the empiredependeduponthe conkind,and laborto theirlordsto whomthe
landbelonged.On the eve of the emancipa- 1p. I. Liashchenko,Hifto1*yof the NationalEconomy
of Rassia (New York, 1949), 273; K. A. Pazhitnov,
tion only about8 per cent of the empire's "K
voprosuo roli krepostnogotruda v doreformennoi
population
of 74 millionslivedin cities,and promyshlennosti",lstorichestie
zapiski,7:236-237,
less than a millionpeoplewere employed 243-244 (1940).
q P. K. Alefirenko,"Russkaia
obshchestvennaia
mysl
in factoryindustry.1Agriculturewas far pervoi
polovinyXVIIIstoletiiao sel'skomkhoziaistve,"
and awaythe chiefindustryof the country. Ak. Nauk,InstitutIstorii,Materialypo istoriizemledeliia
The nation'seconomywas almostentirely SSSR,1:528-529 (1952).
I. Bak,"Vozniknovenie
russkoisel'skokhoziaistvennoi
dependent
uponit. Yet duringthe 150years ekonomii,"
Sotsialisticheskoi
Selsstoe
Khoziaistro,no. 9,
fromPeterto Alexander,
whenso manyin- 1945, 53-62.
K. V. Sivkov, "Voprosysel'skogo khoziaistvav
novationswereintroduced
into othersectors russkikh
zhurnalakhposlednei treti XVIII v.," Ak.
of nationallife, agriculture
remainedall but Nauk, InstitutIstorii,Materialy,1:553-560.
3
4
3
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.221 on Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:19:57 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AGRICULTURAL HISTORY
ditionof its agriculture,
and CountP. D. was impossible.A sizableamountof arable
Kiselev, chief of the Ministryof State landwaslostto cultivation
becauseit hadto
Domain,in reportsto the tsar callingthe be usedforboundaries
betweenthestripsand
sovereign's
attentionto the laggingeconomic for the accessroadsand pathsto the many
development
out on the land.5
individualparcels.Communaltillage was
There were a numberof reasons,many the rule,everyonegrowingthe samecrops
thesamefarmingoperations
if notallof themmentioned
bycontemporaryandperforming
observers
andcritics,thatexplained
thisback- at the sametime. A well-nighmilitaryprewardness.Surelyone of the mostimportant cision was followed,with all the workers
wasthe niggardliness
of natureherself.The leavingthe villageandreturningto it at the
holding
soils of the forestzone northof the River sametimeseachday. Eachpeasant's
throughthe
Oka, where until the nineteenthcentury wasdividedintostripsscattered
mostof Russia'speoplelived,wererelatively fieldsof the manor.Someof themwereat
distancefrom the villageso
infertileandmuchof theregionwascovered a considerable
by greatbogs. In the opensteplpes
that lay that often muchtime was lost in going to
to the souththe soilwasfarmorefertile,for and fromthe worksite. In someplacesthe
stripslayas muchas 15to 20 versts
this was the land of the chernozem-the peasants'
blackearth.But the rigorsof Russia'scon- from theirhomes,and in one extremeintinentalclimatereducedthe growingseason stancetheywere70verstsaway.(In thisparin eventhesemorefavoredzonesandinade- ticularinstancethepeasantsleasedtheirland
quaterainfallnearlyeverywhere
held back at a low rental.)In the LowerVolgaprovinces,wherethevillagesoftenwerelargeand
cropyields.
someThese disadvantages
of soil and climate lay far fromsomeof theirplowlands,
withits cattleand
wereaggravated
by theattitudeof thepeople timestheentiresettlement
who ownedthe landand the techniquesof implementscampedout near the fields in
thosewhoworkedit. MostRussians,
whether springfor plowingand sowing,and in fall
lordsor peasants,seemedcontentwith the for harvesting.6
traditional
patternof agricultural
exploitation. The handicapsof the open field system,
its effectsupon individual
Thoughthereseemsto havebeensomede- and particularly
clinein landlordabsenteeism
in the lastpart initiative,werefoundin all countrieswhere
of the eighteenthandin the nineteenth
cen- this methodof tillage was used. But in
wereintensifiedby
tur1es,manyproprzetors,
as 1nprev1ous
cen- Russiaits disadvantages
of
turies,spentlittleor no timeon theirestates, the practiceof periodicredistribution
holdings
that
became
especially
widespread
eitherbecausethe demandsof government
servicekeptthemawayor becausetheyplre- in the eighteenthand nineteenthcenturies.
ferredurbanlife. The onlyinterestmostof The peasant was converted into the
occupant
of thestripsallottedhim
thesemenhadin theirproperties
wasin the temporary
revenuesin cashand kind they drewfrom byhiscommune.He hadlittleor no interest
them.
5C.
E. N. Kusheva, "Proekt uchrezhdeniia aktsionAs for the peasants,whetherserfson pri- ernogo
'Obshchestva Uluchsheniia Chastnogo Sel'skago
vately-owned
landor half-freepeasantswho Khoziaistva' 30-x godov xix v.," IstorichestiiArkAiv,
7: 60 (1951); Sbornit
Imperatorstago
Kusstago
Isto1livedon stateland,the techniques
of tillage ichestago
Ooshchestva,98: 489-490 (1896).
they employedwere virtuallyunchanged 6 M. Baranovich, Materialydlia geografiii stattstiti
Shtaba. Riafromwhattheyhadbeenin themiddleages. Rossii sobrannyeofitseramiGene1Sal'nago
Gabeniia (St. Petersburg, 1860), 237-239;
Inadequate
or no fertilizing,primitivetools, zanstaia
A. von Haxthausen, Studienuber dfieinnernZustande,
die landlichenEinrichandalltheotheraccoutrements
of obsolescentdas Voltslebenund insbeso1sdere
Rtl-sland.¢(Hannover,Berlin, 1847-1852), 1:
farmingcombinedto holdbackproductivity.tungen
157, 2: 10; A. von Buschen, "Die FreibauernRusslands,"
Theopenfieldsystem,withits divisionof the Zeitschr1ft
/S} die gesammteStaatswissenschaft,
I5: 232(1859), and note; K. N. Shchepetov, K1^epostnoe
arableland into small stripsand parcels, 233
pravo v votchinath Sheremerevyth(Moscow, 1947),
offeredseriousobstaclesto agricultural
im- 57; N. M. Druzhinin, Gosudarstrennyekrest'ianei
P. D. Kiseleva (Moscow, Leningrad, 1946),
provements.
The stripsthemselves
wereonly I:reforma
325.
about10to 14feetwide,so thatcrossplowing tRheverst was equal to two-thir(is o£ a mile.
.
.
.
.
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.221 on Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:19:57 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RUSSIAN AGRICULTURE IN LAST 150 YEARS OF SERFDOM
5
in increasingtheir fertilitybecausein all alikestressedthe needfor moreand better
as the indispenlikelihoodthey wouldbe assignedto some meansof communication
progress.9
Land sableconditionfor agricultural
otherhousehold
at thenextrepartition.
suchas draining, Lowyieldsandfrequentcropfailureswere
thatneededimprovement,
resultsof themanyshortbeforeit couldbe planted,and fieldsthat the not-unexpected
gave only mediocreyields,often were left comingsof Russianagriculture.Incomplete
emptybecauseno onewaswillingto expend datashow therewereat least34 partialor
the effort involvedin reclaimingor im- generalcropfailuresin the eighteenthcenprovingthemwhenthe rewardsof his labor tury,and contemporary
of the
statisticians
werelikelyto go to someoneelse. Meadows early part of the nineteenthcenturyestifrequentlyweredividedaneweachyearjUSt matedthat therewas one totalcropfailure
to drainor and two partialonesout of everyten years.
beforehaying,so no onebothered
theirplroductivityInformation
clearthem. Consequently,
on yieldscollectedbetween1759
wasmuchlessthanit mighthavebeen.7
thatthe
indicated
and1786,thoughimprecise,
of Russianagri- chief cereals(rye, oats,barleyand wheat)
Finally,the development
retardedby the gavethreeto five timesthe seed. Datacolculturewas immeasurably
fantastically
bad conditionof the empire's lectedfor1802showedthattheaverageyields
zommunications
system.Roadswerefew and in the black earth for wintergrainswas
and undrained,so around4.4 times the sced and for spring
usuallywere unsurfaced
that in rainyweatherthey were Qftenim- cereals3.3 to 1, whilein the forestzone the
figureswere3.0and2.4.1°These
passable.The land carriageof most goods comparable
however,concealwide fluctuations
hadto waituponthecomingof winterwhen averages,
the snow coverallowedtransportby sled. both withineachof thesetwo regionsand
Butwintertravelhadits perils,too,andeach betweenthem. Farmersin the richestparts
year many succumbedto the cold and to of the chernozemin someyearsgot eightstorms,or lost theirway in the unmarked fold returnson wintergrainsandsixfoldon
and endlesssnowfieldsand perished.And springcereals.In unusuallygood yearsrye
if by unluckychancethe winterwas mild, and wheatwere reportedto have returned
with only light snowfall,sled transportbe- as muchas fourteenand sixteentimesthe
camedifiicultand glutspiledup out in the seed andmilletyieldswereevenhigher.1l
land, while townspeople suffered from
von Koppen, StatistischeReise in's Land der
shortagesand high prices.8Manypartsof donischenKosakenJdurch die Gouzoernements
Ttlla,
the rivernetworkthatlacedthe realmcould Orelu^d Wosoneshin Jahres850 (St. Petersburg,1852),
Baranovich,
Materialy,178, 239.
not be navigatedfor a largepartof the year 122-123;
et classessocialesen Russie
8R. Portal,"Manufactures
becauseof icein winter,floodsin spring,and au
siecle," ReuHeHistorique,201:169 ( 1949) ;
low waterin the summermonths.An even W. Tooke, View of the RussianEmpire during the
II, and to the close of the eighteenth
reign of CatAterine
more seriousdrawbackwas that most of centu1y
(London,1799), 1: 27-28.
the streamsflowednorthand south,and so
A. von Haxthausen,Die landlicheVedassungRuss(Leipzig,1866), 4; Haxthausen,Studien,2: 104;
flow lands
wereof littleor no use in the east-west
P. D. Kiselevto TsarNicholasI, SbornitImperaof trade acrossthe empire. Railroadand Count
98: 490
towskagolklwss&goIstosichestvgoObschestvaJ
destractives
highwayconstruction
got underway in the (1896); A. Jourdier,Des forcesprodzsstives,
ispsoductivesde la Rassie (Paris, 1860), 36-37; X.
century,but Rus- et
firsthalfof the nineteenth
le
tiommairede Hell, Les steppesde la mer Caspienzle,
sialaggedfarbehindothernationsin carrying Caucarse,la Csinlee et la Russia meridionale(Paris,
throughthese badlyneededimprovements.Strasbourg,1843-1845), 1: 46-47; J. Kulischer,"Die
in Russlandund die Agrarverfassung
Leibeigenschaft
Becauseof these parlousconditionsin Preussensim 1&tenJahrhundert,"
7aXirbuch
flis Nationaltransportation,
farm goods often could get otonomieund Statisti&,127:61 (1932).
sel'skoekhoziaistvo
-0P I>.Liashchenko,"Krepostnoe
andmuch Rossii
to the marketonlywithdifficulty
v XVIIIveke,"IstorichestieZapiski,15: 116-117
expense,and sometimeswereunableto get ( 1945); P. I. Liashchenko,Oche1ti agrarnoievoliutsii
(Leningrad,1925), 1: 120.
thereat all. The problemsof reachingthe Rossii
11M. Domonto^ich,Materialydliia geografiii statissurpluses wita Rossii sobrannyeofiitseramiGeneral'nagoSAltabv.
marketandtheriskof undisposable
pilingup in the villageactedas a braketo ChernigovGuberniia(St. Petersburg,1865), 183; L. de
Etzldes sur les forces productivesde la
or 1nlncreaslng Tegoborski,
anylnterestln lmp!rovements
Russie (Paris, 1852-1855), 1: 39; Druzhinin,Gosudas-andforeignvisitors strennye41^est'iane,
output.Russianobservers
1: 401, 409, 417.
7 P.
xviiie
9
.
.
.
.
.
.
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.221 on Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:19:57 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
6
AGRICULTURAL HISTORY
Estimatesmadefor the first half of the provincescould make ends meet was to
nineteenth
centuryshowthatyieldswerejust engagein cottagehandicraftproductionor
aboutthe same as they had been in the to leavetheirvillagesto findworkelsewhere
preceding
century,andindeedas farbackas in tradeandindustry.
the sixteenthcenturyand probablyeven In the blackearthzones,however,where
earlier.12The yields for EuropeanRussia the land was fertile and in many places
averaged
outat about3.5to 1 forbothwinter sparselyscttled,therewas a largeexpansion
and springcereals.13
Comparative
datacol- in the areaof plowland.Duringthe eightlectedaroundthe middleof the centuryre- eenthcenturythe centerof agricultural
provealedthat Russianyieldswerelowerthan ductionhadcompleted
its shiftbegunin the
those of any other Europeannation. The previouscenturyfromthe Muscovitecenter
averagein Belgiumand Hollandwas 14 intothe steppelands.
By the turnof the cenhectolitresper hectare;in Saxony,Great tury more than half of EuropeanRussia's
Britain,Wurttemberg,
andBadenit was13.2 sowedarealay in the blackearthpjrovinces,
hectolitres;in Austria,10.3; France,9.3; althoughthe total areaof theseprovinces
Sweden,9.3;Prussia,9.1;Italy,9.0l;Norway, wasonly60 percentof thatof the non-black
7.6; Spain,6.2; Greece,6.1; and in Russia earthprovinces.Duringthe nineteenthcenit was6 hectolitres
perhectare.14
turythearablezonetherecontinuedto grow
Desplitethe fact that yield per unit re- andfurtheroutstriptheolderregions.18
The
mainedthesame,the totaloutputof Russian spreadof settledtillageintoNew Russiaand
agricultureclimbed steadily during the alongthe middleandlowerVolgaaccounted
eighteenthandnineteenth
centuries.
This,of for mostof the increasein chernozemprocourse,was becauseof the greatincreasein duction.At the end of the eighteenthcenthe amountof land undercultivation.The tury those frontierregionshad been very
remarkable
rise in the empire'spopulation thinly populatedand had been used prifrom 13 millions in the early 1720'sto marilyfor cattleraising.During the next
74 millionsin 1858,15
and to a far lesser half-century
a greatwaveof colonistsmoved
degreethe development
of foreignmarkets, into themfromthe center,so that by 1860
providedthe stimuli for this expansion. severalof the provincestherehad a populaGiventheinefficient
techniques
of cultivation tion densityas heavyas thatof someprovthen dominant,the only way to meet the
12 For yields in earlier centuriessee LiashPhenko,
heighteneddemandsfor foodstuffswas to Ocserti,
1 87 n.; P. N. Miliukov,Ocherti po istorii
take more land under the plow. In the zUsstoi
t>I'tury
(2nd ed., St. Petersburg,1896-1903),
olderregionsof settlement
northof the Oka, 1: 73-74 n.; K. N. Shchepetov,"Sel'skoekhoziaistvov
votchinakhIosifo-Volokolamskogo
Monastyriav kontse
just aboutall the land suitablefor crops X\tI
veka," IstoricAiestie
Zapisti,
18: 107-108 (1946).
The Rothamstedexperimentson the continuous
had beenput into use by 1800.After that
of wheat "seemto indicatethat the tendency
date the areaof plowlandthereremained cropping
o£ an exhaustingsystemof cultisration
. . . is to reduce
relativelystable.Butthe population
kepton the crop to a minimumin a few deca(les,but that this
going up. As a result,the peasantrycould minimum,once it is reached,can be maintainedalmost
indefinitely."R. Lennard,"The AllegedExhaustionof
no longersupportitselffromthe landalone. Soil
in MedievalEngland,"EconomicJournal,32: 27
Datafor 1783-1784
for the provinceof Tver, (1922).
directlynorthwestof Moscow,showedthat 13 p. Storch, "Der Bauernstandin Russlandin gestatistischer,
staatsrechtlicher
und landwirtthe peasants'cash incomefrom agricultureschichtlicher,
schaftlicherHinsicht,"MittAleilungen
der taiserlichen
coveredonly 4(S50per cent of the money freienotonomischenGesellschaft
ZlS St. Petersburg,
1849,
Des forces,145; Liashchenko,
History,324.
they neededto meetexpenses.16
A govern- 86;14 Jourdier,
MinisterstvaGosudarstvennykh
Imuschchestv,Ob'ment surveymade in Pskov in the 1830s iasneniiak t/loziaistrenno-statistichestomy
atlasy EvroRossii,I. Vil'son,ed. (4th ed., St. Petersburg,
revealedthatover70 percentof the peasant peSstoi
1869), 115. Hereafterreferredto as M.G.I.
familieson state-owned
landin thatprovince '-5Liashchenko,
Histor, 273.
16I. Bak, "K voprosuo genezisekapitalisticheskogo
did not haveenougharablelandand cattle uklada
v krepostnom
khoziaistveRossii,"VoprosyIstorii
to meettheirminimumrequirements.17
The 1948, no. 4, 74.
Gosudarstrennye
trest'iane, 1: 385-387.
onlywaythesepeopleandmostof the other 187 Druzhinin,
p.
I. Liashchenko,Istoriia narodnogothoziaistva
peasantswho lived in the non-blackearth SSSR (Moscow,1947-1948), 1:520.
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.221 on Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:19:57 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RUSSIAN AGRICULTURE IN LAST 150 YEARS OF SERFDOM
7
incesin the oldestpartsof the empire,and litrespercapita;thencameFrancewith 6.3,
in a coupleof provinces(SimbirskandSara- Prussiawith 6.2,Austria,5.7,GreatBritain,
tov) it was considerably
heavier.19At the 4.9,Belgium,4.7 and Italy,4.24
outsetof the nineteenthcenturythe sowed Both contemporary
and later observers
areain New Russiawas estimatedto have sometimes
claimedthatdespitethe low level
been 800,00desiatins,and in four Volga of productivity
Russiasuffered
froma chronic
provinces1,000,000
desiatins.In the 1860s overproduction
of grain during the first
thesefigureshad risento 6 millionand 4.6 half of the nineteenthcentury.The inademilliondesiatins,respectively.20
quacyof thedatamadeit impossible
forthese
An estimated96 per cent of the arable writersto calculatethe amountof the surlandin chernozem
andnon-chernozem
alike plus but theirestimatesran as high as 10
was plantedin cereals.In the eighteenth per cent of the harvest.They claimedthat
centuryryewas apparently
by far the single this constantsurpluswas unmarketable
and
mostimportant
crop.Wheatwasparamount was extremelydamagingto the economy,
in only a few regionsand in manyplaces depressing
prices,actingas a deterrent
to the
it trailedbehindrye,barleyandoatsin order introduction
of betterfarmingmethods,and
of importance.21
By the middleof the nine- contributing
significantly
in the creationof
teenthcentury,however,rye remainedthe a "generalcrisisin serf agriculture"
in the
dominantcroponlyin the northand center mid-nineteenth
century. This widely-held
downto 5S52 degreesof latitude.Southof view has beenseriouslyquestionedby P. I.
this line, wheat, and particularlyspring Popov.Popovarguedthat,farfromsuSering
wheat,had becomethe chief crop. In the from chronicoverproduction
in the period
rye-growing
zone oatswerethe chiefspring from 1840to 1860,Russiadid not produce
grain,takingup as muchas three-fourths
of enoughgrainto meettheneedsof herpeople.
all the arablelanddevotedto springcereals. He pointedout that the estimatesof grain
Muchless oatsweregrownin the southern productionin these (and earlier)decades
provinces.Buckwheat
andmilletwereother werebasedupontheoretical
appraisals
of the
important
springgrains,the latterbeingparVnutrennikh
Del,
Tsentral'nyi
statticularlypopularin the blackearth. In the isticheskii Ministerstva
komitet,
Statistichestaia
tablitsy
rossiistoi
imsouthwest,
andchieflyin Bessarabia
(annexed perii. Nalichnoe
naselenie
im perii
za
I 858
god
(St.
by Russiain 1812),Indiancornwasa major Petersburg, 1863), 158-174.
20 Liashchenko,
Istoriia, 1 :519; Liashchenko,
"Krepcrop.
ostnoe
sel'skoe
khoziaistvo,"
99,
106-107.
Precisefigureson the size of the grain The desiatin was equal to 2.7 acres or 1.09 hectares.
History, 324;
Liashchenko,
"Krepharvests
in the pre-1861
eraarenot available. Liashchenko,
ostnoe
sel 'skoe
khoziaistx
o,"
114- 115.
In 1873,however,an oHicial
commission
pub- 2S M.G.I., 116- 120.
lishedthe followingestimatesfor European
A. Khromov,
Etonomichestoe
razvitie
Rossii v
XIX-XX
vetathI800-I9I7
(Moscow,
1950),
19.
These
Russia:23
19 C.
21
23 p.
Years
Average annual
harvest (millions
of chetverts)
1800-1813_________________.
1834-1840____________________
1840-1847_________________
1857-1863__________________
155.0
179.0
209.7
220.0
figures
are
times
during
drossov
in
chetverts;
(ibid.,
than
the
1813
data
in
ences
de
Histoire,
estimate
(Tegoborski,
von
de
Petersbourg,
260
Etudes,
basis
186
Koplpen,
1 :205);
and
chetverts
in
Kornbedarf
Imperiale
Sciences
in
in-
chetverts
den
(1845);
chetverts
Anmillion
admittedly
million
Series,
various
189
million
"tSber
5:526-527
million
at
of
l'Afcadeenie
VIme
at
Thus,
crop
it at 200
the
at
made
century.
annual
set
it
Philologie,
was
1818
estimated
Memoires
Sr.
the
on
(P.
estimates
half
Koppen,
mid-thiriies
Russlands,"
other
preceding
estimated
Arsen'ev
18-19);
complete
the
lower
des
Sci-
Politique,
Tegoborski's
the
Vil'on
latter
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.221 on Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:19:57 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
the
1840's
MinBecauseof the vast areadevotedto cereals, istry of State Domain estimated 265 million chetverts
Russiaproducedmoregrainper capitathan for the early '60's (M.G.I., 112).
chetvert
was
equal
to 2.098
hectolitres
or 5.95
did any otherEuropeanland even though U.S.The bushels.
the yield per unit of arableland was the
M.G.I.,
116.
According
to
another
computation
lowestin Europe.A mid-century
estimate however, in 1851-60, Denmark was first in per capita
with
43 bushels,
Rumania
second
with
23,
and
placedthe empire'soutputat 9 hectolitresoutput
Russia
third
with
20 bushels.
M. G. Mulhall,
The Dicpercapita; Swedenwasnextwith6.6 hecto- tionary of Statistics (4th ed., London, 1899), 7.
24
of
8
AGRICULTURAL HISTORY
sizeof the averageannualharvest.Actually, homelandin the latterhalfof the century.29
BaronAugustvon
sharpfluctuations
in outputandpartialcrop When the Westplhalian
visitedsomeof thesecoloniesin
failuresratherthana uniformoutput,were Haxthausen
therule.The surpluses
produced
in thegood 1843he thoughthe was backhome. "The
yearsdid not representoverproduction
but designof the villagesand all of the buildwereneededto meetthe deficiencies
of the ings,"he enthused,"thegardens,theirlaybad years,and were carefullystoredaway out, the plants,the vegetables,and above
elsethepotatoes,
allis German."
30
for thatpurpose.Thesereserves,
whenthey everything
couldbe accumulated,
werevitallyimportant The plant was also reportedto have been
centuryin the
becausethe shortcomings
of the transporta-grownin the lattereighteenth
far
north
in
the
province
of
Arkhangel,
where
tion systemoften madeit prohibitively
exnot muchelsecouldbe raisedwith anysucpensiveto bringin foodstuds.25
Aftercereals,flaxandhempwerethe most cess. The chiefbarrierthatstoodin the way
of potatoculturein Rusimportantcrops. Flax was grown every- of the development
wherein Russiasavein the extremenorth, sia, as in otherlands,was the prejudiceof
and unreabut by the mid-nineteenth
centurythe chief the peasants.Withthe obstinacy
sonableness
that
are
supposedly
traditional
regionsof production
werethe Baltic,White
characteristics
of
their
station,
they
resisted
Russia,andCentralIndustrial
provinces,
and
eGorts
of
the
government
and
of
improving
along the shoresof the Black and Azov
to introducethe potatoevenwhen
Seas.Hempculturecentered
in theprovinces landlords
there
was
famine
in thelandandthepeasants
of Smolensk,
Mogilev,Chernigov,
andin the
were
actually
starving.31
The government
CentralAgriculturalzone.26These plants
had
evinced
an
interest
in
promoting
potato
had beenamongthe chiefproductsof Rusculture
as
early
as
1765
32 butdid not engage
sianagriculture
for centuries,
theirfiberand
oil-yielding
seedsbeingof primeimportancein a sustainedeffortuntil the seriouscrop
in meetingthe domesticdemandfor textiles failuresof 1839and1840.Thenthe Ministry
to adminand fats. They had also long been major of State,only recentlyestablished
ister
the
vast
lands
owned
by
the
state,iniitemsin Russia'sexportlist. In fact,up to
tiated
a
"crash
program"
that
combined
comthe mid-1840s
the value of hemp and flax
pulsion
and
encouragement.
The
Ministry
exportsexceededthatof grain.27
orderedpotatoesplantedon the common
Little attentionwas paid to the commer- landsof all state-owned
properties
with the
cial production
of vegetables
savenearlarge seedprovidedby the state. It publishedincitieswherethe peasants
raisedtruckfor sale struction
manualson theculture,storage,and
in the nearbyurbanmarket.Peas, beans, usesof thepotatoforsuchproductsas starch
and lentilswere sometimesplantedin the and syrup,and it oGeredmedalsand cash
springfieldin lieu of a grain,and peasants asvardsto outstandingproducers.In 1843
grewlargequantitiesof cucumbers
and cab- the Ministryannouncedthat commonsdid
bagesin gardewn
plots. An Englishman
who not have to be plantedwith the tubersin
traveledin northernRussia around 1790
wrotethat in summernearlyeverypeasant 2SL.Kritzman,P. Popov,Ia. Iakovlev,Selstoe
tAozina putiath vosstanorlenzia(Moscow,1925), 1-3,
he sawhad"abitof blackbreadin onehand, aistro
5-15.
and a cucumber
in the other."Bothcucum- 2 M.G.I.,222-228, 261-263.
bersandcabbages
hadtheadvantage
of being The CentralIndustrialprovinceswere Moscow,Tver,
Kostroma,Nizhegorod,Vladimir,Smolensk,
able to be preservedin palatableform as Iaroslav,
and Kaluga. The CentralAgriculturalprovinceswere
picklesand sauerkraut,
for whichdelicaciesOrel, Tula, Riazan,Tambov,Voronezh,and Kursk.
Khromov, EA<oasomicAsestoe
razaitie, 97.
the Russianshad a well-developed
taste.28 2728 A.
Swinton,Travels into Norway, Denmart, and
Potatoeswere an unimportant
cropuntil R>ssiain the years s788, I789, I790 and 179I (London,
themiddleof the nineteenth
century.In the 1792), 442-445; Tegoborski,Etudes, 2:98; M.G.I.,120.
Pallas, Voyages du Professeur Pallas, transl.
eighteenth
centurytheyhadbeenall butun- from German
(Paris, 1794), 7: 304.
knownexceptamongthe Germancolonists 30Haxthausen,Studien, 2: 172.
31Tooke,View, 3:274-275;Tegoborski,
Etudes, 2:104.
in the steppe,who had broughtthe tuber 32Cf.
Polsoe-Sobwanie Zatonov Rossiistoi 7mperii, 8:
with them when they migratedfrom their no. 12406 (31 May 1765).
29 p.
S.
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.221 on Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:19:57 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RUSSIAN AGRICULTURE IN LAST 150 YEARS OF SERFDOM
9
thosevillageswherethe peasantsproduced forestthe Russianseemsafraidto find himselfalone
in the immensityof his environment.Communal
one-eighthof a chetvertper adultmaleon property
. . . augmentsthe defaultof nature;it detheirown holdings;and in 1844the award prives the
Russianof those enclosures,of those
of prizeswas discontinued
save in certain capriciouslyshapedhedges,which are muchof the
southernand easternprovinceswherelittle charmof the villagesof Englandand Normandy.
progresshad thus far been madein potato Insteadthere is the mournfulflatness,the dull
boredomof the impersonaland collectivizedcouncultivation.33
trysidewherethe fieldslie undividedin long,equal,
Theseeffortshad a remarkable
effectnot and symmetricalstrips.40
only amongthe peasantson stateland but
systemremainedthe domialsoamongthe serfswho livedon privately- The three-field
nant
method
of
cultivation
in theold regions
ownedestates.A reportof the Ministryof
of
settlement,
as-it
long
had
been.Butin the
StateDomainto the Tsarin 1850estimated
vast
steppes
that
reached
to
the southand
that in 1837a millionchetvertsof potatoes
east,
field
grass
husbandry
was
in general
had been sown, with over a thirdof this
use
until
the
end
of
the
eighteenth
century.
amountplantedby state peasants;and in
in whicha fieldwas
185O,5.8 million chetvertswere sown, of Thiswastefultechnique,
continuously
forseveralharvests
and
whichonly 1.6millionhadbeenplantedby croplped
then
left
untilled
for
as
much
as
seven
years
statepeasants.34
Othercontemporary
reports
confirmthe introduction
and largeincrease or morebeforebeing workedagain,41was
in potatoproductionduringthe '40s and possibleso long as theseregionswerethinly
'50s.38By the early1860san estimated6.4 populated.As theyfilledup, fieldgrasshusmillionchetvertswere sown,and the crop bandrygave way steadilyto the less wastesystem.
was calculatedto be 23.9 millionchetverts. ful- albeitstillinefEcientthree-field
Often
during
the
period
of
transition
the
two
The chief producingareaswere the Baltic
methods
would
be
in
simultaneous
use
on
a
andWesternprovinces.Onlysmallamounts
single
property.
By
the
1860s
field
grass
husweregrownin the easternhalfof European
bandryremainedpredominant
only in some
Russiaandin New Russia.36
of
the
steppe
frontiers
where
population
was
Russiadid not escapethe potatodiseaseof
still
sparse
and
land
still
plentiful.
Elsewhere
thelatterlX40s,
butit seemsto havehadmuch
systemprevailed.42
lessvirulencetherethanit had in thPlands the three-field
of CentralandWesternEurope.The blight 33Tegoborski,Etudes, 2: 105;Mittheilungender taifirstappeared
in the Halticprovincesand in serlichenfreienotonomischenGesellschaftzu St. Petezs1844, 261-263.
the succeedingtwo yearsspreadnorthand burg,
SbornitImperatorstago
RtlsstagoIstorichestagoObeastintoRussiaproper.Yieldsandtotalpro- shchestv4,98:492 (1896).
Mikhalevich,
Materialydlia georg-rafii
i statistitl
ductiondid not fall off seriously,
however.37Rossiisobran1zye
ofiFtseaSami
Gene1^al'nago
Shtaba. VoSugarbeetswereanotherinnovation
of the onezh Guberniia(St. Petersburg,1862), 199; M. Popi statistitiRossiisobranfirsthalf of the nineteenthcentury,but the rotskii,Mate^ialydlia georglrafiii
nye oftsesami General'nago
SAstaba.KaltlzAstaiaGtlbareagivenoverto themwassmall.38Forage erniia
(St. Petersbulg,1864), 459-460;Ia. Krzhivoblotcrops were of very little importance,al- skii, Matezialydlia geografiii statistiti
Rossiisobtannye
oftseramiGeneral'nago
Shtaba.KostromaGuterniia(St.
though enterprisinglandlordsintroducedPetersburg,
1861), 286, 303; Haxthausen,Studien,
somegrassesin the nineteenthcentury.39 1:159; cf. Druzhinin,
Gosudarstre^nye
tresttiane,1: 381;
Everywhere
in Russiathe cropsgrew in K. V. Sivkov,Ocherkipo istoriitrepostnogothoziaistva
i krest'ianskogo
dvizAteniia
v Rossii v pervoi polovine
open,unfencedfieldsthatsprawled
acrossthe XIX
reta (Moscow,1951), 24-25.
vastplainsas far as the eye couldsee, over- 36M.G.I.,112, 124.
37Mittheilungen
der taiserluchenfreienotonomischen
whelmingtheobserver
withthemonotony
of
Gesellschaft,1847, 397-406;Tegoborski,Etades, 2:108.
theirsameness.A Frenchvisitorwrote:
38Tegoborski,
Etlwdes,1:215; M.G.I.,293 ff.
34
35v.
The fields here have none of the life and variety
that they often have in otherlands.... There is
hardlyany of the juxtaposition
of diderentcrops
that give so much animationto our Westerncountryside. It's as if everythingis the same field
stretchingout to infinity,broken only now and
then by vast fallows. Not a hamlet,not a house,
not an isolatedhomestead.On the steppeas in the
S91xegoborski,
St7wdes,
2 :1-2.
4> A. Leroy-Beaulieu,
L'empire des tsars et les 1usses
(2nd ed., Paris,1882-1883),1: 160.
41CE.Haxthausen,Studien,2: 15, 164.
42 M.G.I.,52-53, 56; Redaktsionny
Kommissii,Pervoe
izdaniematerialov(St. Petersburg,
1859-1860),14:9-10;
Liashchenko,"Krepostnoesel'skoe khoziaistvo,"109;
Bak,"K voprosu,"73.
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.221 on Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:19:57 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
10
AGRICULTURAL HISTORY
In the forested,thinlypopulated,and in- theexistinglevelof cultivation,
an insufficient
fertilenorthern
provinces
of Arkhangel,
Olo- amountof dung was availablebecausenot
nets,and Vologda,andto a lesserextentin enoughforagewasraisedto supportthe nectheneighboring
provinces
of Novgorod,Kos- essaryamountof cattle.Contemporary
agritroma,Viatka,andPerm,primitive
slash-burn culturistsheld that ideallyone thirdof the
tillagewas frequentlyemployed.The peas- arablelandshouldbemanured
eachyear,and
antsin theseregionsdrewtheirlivingspri- thatonedesiatinof meadowforeachdesiatin
marilyfromsuchpursuitsas lumbering,
fish- of plowlandwas requiredto produceapproing, hunting,and trappingbut they often priateamountsof fertilizer.Data fromthe
took advantage
of the shortgrowingseason mid-nineteenth
centuryshowthatin thecento raisea cropin a forestclearing.Following tralnon-black
earthprovincesthe ratiowas
a centuries-old
technique,
theyfelledthetrees lessthanone-fourth
of a desiatinof meadow
in springandthefollowingautumnchopped to one desiatinof arableland. The peasants
off the branches
andhauledawaythe trunks triedto stretchout the availablemanureby
in sledges.The next springthey set fire to mixingit with straw.Otherrestorative
mathebrushanddebristhatcoveredtheclearing terialssuch as marl,chalk,and pond mud
andallowedthe ashesto remain.Thenthey seemto havebeenappliedonlyrarely.46
An
sowedthe area,oftenwithoutplowing,cov- additional
barrierto properfertilizing,apart
ering the broadcastseed by rakingor by fromthe inadequacy
of the supply,was the
draggingtree branchesacrossthe clearing. already-mentioned
disinclination
of the peasTheygrewcerealsand flaxmainly,and the ant to expendtimeand edortin improving
ash-enriched
soil reportedly
gave good and landthat wouldgo to someoneelse at the
sometimesspectacular
yields. The fieldwas next communa
- repart1tlon.
usedcontinuously
forfromtwoto eightyears, In the blackearth,the fieldswith rareexdependingupon its fertility.When it was ceptionwerenevermanured.In fact,many
exhausted
it wasallowedto go backto forest thereseemto havebelievedthat fertilizing
and otherburned-out
patchesthathad been was harmfulto the alreadyveryfertilesoil.
prepared
beforehand
weresown.43
The dungin thesetreelessregions,whenit
Besidesthesethreechiefmethodsof culti- was not thrownaway,wasdriedinto bricks
vation,a numberof other tillagesystems, andusedfor fuel. Whenit was put on the
usuallyvariationsof the three-fieldsystem, fields,it was appliedsplaringly
and infrewere employedlocallyand on a relatively quently.47
small scale. Rotationsdesignedto restore The agricultural
implementsusedby the
fertilityby plantinga cropratherthan by pseasants,
like the tillage systems,changed
fallowingwerescarcely
usedat all. The tech- littleif at all fromwhattheyhad beenfor
niquehad beenintroduced
into the empire centuries,and there was remarkably
little
in the late eighteenthcentury,and a few interestshownin theeighteenth
andformost
progressive
landlordstried it out on their of the nineteenth
centuries
in adoptingmore
estates.44
Butthe apathyof mostproprietorsefficienttools. The most importantimpleto agricultural
improvement,
and the resist- mentin allof thenon-black
earthandin most
too,wasthe ancienthookanceto changeof the tradition-bound
peas- of the chernozem,
antry,operatedagainstits generaladoption. plow,the sotha.48 This light tool,madeof
Furthermore,
a capitalexpenditure
was necTooke, I'iew, 3: 248-249; M.G.I., 49; D. Mck.
essaryto installthe new systemandthe low Wallace,R?assia(New York,1878), 114-115.
Haxthausen,Stadien, 1: 273; 2: 76, 85.
priceof grainpersuaded
manythatsuchan
M.G.I.,65-68.
outlaywas not justified.It caughton only 46Ibid.,44-45, 48; Tooke, Fiew, 3: 256, 259.
4tM.G.I., 69; Haxthausen,Stzsdien, 2: 15; Koppen
in the Balticprovinces,
wherefromthe lX30s Statistische
Reise, 47, 61, 122-123;MinistervoGosudarit cameinto wideuse. By the middleof the stvennykhImushchestv,Statistichestii obzo1 gos?adarimusAlchestvza s858 god (St. Petersburg,
centuryit had begunto spreadfrom these stzZenttykh
1861), 4; Tooke, View, 3: 264; Domontovich,Materiprovincesinto the neighboringLithuanian alv, 182.
Voyages, 1: 3-4; Tooke, View, 3: 240-241;
provincesof Kovno,Vilna,and Grodno.45
G. von Schulze-Gaevernitz,
"DerNationalismus
in RussManuringhad long beena standardprac- land
und seine wirtschaftlichenTrager," Psezessische
tscein the non-blackearthcenter.But with tahb2iche;, /5:502 (1894).
.
.
43
44 C.
45
48Pallas,
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.221 on Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:19:57 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
RUSSIAN AGRICULTURE IN LAST 150 YEARS OF SERFDOM
ll
Sowoodsavefor its two iron shares,couldbe derthe aegisof the MoscowAgricultural
drawnbya smallhorse.Because
of its weight cietyof the Srmof ButenopBrotherswas a
and inefficientdesign,it could only cut a landmark
in thisdevelopment.
Between1833
shallowfurrowandcouldnot turnoverlarge and1846thevalueof theiroutputof toolsand
clodsnor thoroughly
tearup weedroots. It machineryamountedto one millionrubles,
wasa poortoolat best,butit wasparticularlyandincluded1100threshers,
6060winnowing
unsuitedfor workingthe heavychernozem. machines,
1600plows,and1200harrows.BuYet, it continuedto be used becauseit was tenopBrothershad beenthe firstfarmtool
cheapandeasyto makeand,mostimportant, factoryin Russia,but by 1850,accordingto
becausethe usualpeasantlackedthe animals a government
report,therewere19suchfirms
neededto pull a heavierand moreefiicient witha totalannualvolumeof 150,000
rubles.
plow. A somewhatbetterimplementcalled This figure,of course,did not includethe
the tosulia
midwayin design betweena many small village shopsengagedin this
sotha
and a trueplow, was employedto a sortof production.82
limitedextentin the northand non-black Animalhusbandryoccupieda secondary
earthcenter. Heavierthat the sothabut rolein agriculture
in mostof European
Russtill able tO be drawnby one horse,it cut sia. It was generallyconductedin an ineffideeperandwasmoreeffectivein turningsod cient manner,partlybecauseof the forage
and breakingnew land. In Little Russia shortagethat resultedfrom the prevailing
(Kharkov,Poltava,Chernigov)the peasants modesof cultivation,
and partlybecauseof
useda heavywheeledplowcalledthe saban, the lackof interestof bothprop!rietors
and
drawnby two or four horses,or four,six, peasants.No attentionwas paidto selective
andeveneightoxen. In lightsoils,however, breeding,the animalswere underfedand
theLittleRussiansusedthe sotha
including weregivenlittlecare.As soonastheweather
a two-wheeledversionof that implement. permitted,
they wereturnedout to fendfor
Heavierplows were also used in districts themselves
in the commonpasturesand in
borderingLittleRussiaand in New Russia thestubbile
fields.In wintertheywerecooped
and alongthe MiddleVolga,where,prob- up in ill-keptbarnsand fed meagerrations
ably,tlacyhad beenintroduced
by the Ger- that often werejust straw. Thesepractices
mancolonists.49
producedweali and scrawnycreatureswho
The harrowusedin the forestedzonesof wereeasyvictimsto the frequentepizootics
the centerandnorthwas oftensimplybran- that swept throughthe land. An English
cheslashedtogetherand draggedacrossthe traveler
in thelattereighteenth
centurywrote
sownfield. In somepartsof the centerand thatat theendof winterthecattlesometimes
in the steppe,it was a woodenframeinto weretOo weakto risewithoutaid,anda hunwhichwoodenpegshadbeendriven.Rollers dredyearslateranotherobservantBritisher
werehardlyeverused. The sicklewas the madethe samecomment.Therewerea few
favoredtoolforharvesting
cerealsin mostof
491tooke,View, 3: 240-243, 263; Mittheilungender
European
Russia,thoughthescythewasused kaiserlichen
fseien okonomischen
gesellschaft,1846, 109,
for mowinghayandin someareasforgrain, 110; 1849, 65, 146; 1852, 15, 461; Haxthausen,StudNien,
too. In LittleRussiaand in the Balticlit- 2: 15, 23, 154; Domontovich,Materialy,179; Druzhinin,
Gosuda7
streslsye ts estJiane, 401, 417; Liashchenko,
toral,the scythewas in generaluse for all "Krepostnoe
sel'skoekhoziaistvo,"110.
harvesting.Threshingwas done with flails, 50Pallas, Voyages, 1: 4, 17; Haxthausen,Studiess,
1:231, 247, 274, 282, 484; 2:6, 25, 155; Tooke, View,
thoughsometimes
horsesor peoplewereused 3:
244-245,256; J. G. Georgi,Geographisch-physitaliscAte
to treadout the grain.8°
zlndnatllrhistosische
Bessh1^eibang
des Russischen
Reiches
(Konigsberg*,
1797-1802),2: 187 (pt. 1); F. C. Weber,
Improved
implements
andfarmmachineryDas
Rzsssland(Frankfurt,Leipzig, 1738wereonlybeginningto beusedby themiddle 1740),verZ2rieste
3: 120; Baranovich,Materialy,183; Alefirenko,
mysl," 531.
of thenineteenth
century.Sourcesof the '40s "RusskaiaoL)sllchestvennaia
I)omontovich,Materialy,181; Baranovich,Mateand '50s containreferencesto new imple- rialy,183; Haxthausen,StzxdKien
1: 107; Sivkov,Ochesti,
ments,and especially
threshingmachines,
in 93-94.
SbornitImpeJato1^skago
RtssstagoIstorichestago
Obuse on properties
that belongedto wealthy shchest2va,
98:491-492 (1896); P. Struve, K1;epostnoe
landosrners.;'
l The establishment
in 1831un- khoziaistzwo
(Moscow,1913), 75-76.
51
52
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.221 on Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:19:57 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
12
AGRICULTURAL HISTORY
areasin the Don steppes,in LittleRussia, received130,000desiatinson conditionthat
andin Archangel,
wheremoreattentionwas in threeyearshe was to have a flock of
paidto stockraisingandgoodanimalswere 30,000sheep,a thirdof thempuremerinos
produced.The kholmogor
cattle,developed andtherestof mixedblood.Thesemen,and
in Archangel,
werethebestnativestock.The otherforeigners
withwhomsimilararrangebreedoriginatedwhen Peter I broughtin mentswere made,becamethe pioneersin
in the empire.Theydid
Dutchbiullsto crosswith nativecows,and merinoproduction
had been maintainedby subsequent
impor- theirworkwell,forby 1846over7.5millions
tationsof Dutchanimals.In otherpartsof of the estimated41.6millionsheepin Eurothe emp-ire,
a corporal's
guardof improving peanRussiaweremerinos.Despitea falling
landlordsbroughtin bloodedanimalsfrom priceforthefinewool,themerinoflockscontinuedto growso thatby the early1860sthe
abroadto buildup theirherds.63
The greatexceptionto the generaldisin- numberof merinoshadrisenby over50 per
terestin animalhusbandry
was sheeprais- centto 11.6millions.At thattime61percent
of
ing. Thenativeanimals,of whichtherewere of the merinoswerein the fourprovinces
a large number,were small creaturesand New Russiawheretheindustryhadcentered
bore coarse wool. Efforts made by the fromthe beginning;20 percentwerein the
of LittleRussiaandthe southwest;
governmentin the eighteenthcenturyto provinces
improvethe breed by importingblooded 13 percentwerein the GreatRussianprovstock from Englandand Silesiahad little inces,and ci1ieflyin thoseof the southeast;
effect. Then at the beginningof the nine- and6 percentwerein thewesternandBaltic
teenthcentury,the government
succeeded
in proYinces.
establishing
merinosheepraisingas a major Save for some herdsowned by German
industryby oSeringvast stretchesof empty colonists,the merinosbelongedalmostexof thelandowning
class.
land,and sometimesloans,to personsrais- clusivelyto members
ing merinos.ThelandbecamethehereditarySomeof thesemenomTned
hugenumbersof
property
of thegranteeif he metcertaincon- the animals.In the Crimeaflocksof 25,000
ditions.A numberof thosewhotookadvan- were not unusualand at least one owner,
tageof theseoderswereforeigners
who had Falz-Feinby name, owned 400,000.The
gainedexperience
in merinobreeding
in their flocksbelongingto the peasantswereof the
homelandsand wereattractedto Russiaby inferiornativerace exceptin the Crimea
the luresheld out by the government.A wherepeasants
ownedbettersheep,somehavSpaniardnamedRouvierwas given 30,000 ing severalhundredheadin the early'60S.54
desiatinsof land in the Crimeaand a loan
Tooke, View, 3: 181-188; Wallace, Russia, 96;
of 100,000paperrublesto build up a herd
M.G.I.,387, 388, 392, 393-394.
of 100,000
merinosandtrain100studentsin
M.G.I., 399-406; Tooke, View, 3: 194-200; Tegosheepfarming. A GermannamedMuller borski,Etudes,1:485.
53
5{
PLOWINGWITH ELEPHANTS
It is statedthatin Ceylonelephantsare employedin plowingnew groundsfor the
cultivation
of coffee,pepper,etc. One of theseanimalswhenwelltrained,it is said,will do
the work of 20 oxen; consequently
morelaboris performedin a given time, and the
periodis hastenedfor puttingin the crops.The price of an elephantin Ceylonvaries
from$50to $75.
The GeneseeFarmer (1848)
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.221 on Mon, 26 Nov 2012 11:19:57 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions