ANALYSIS OF L. HUSCHKE’S DATA106 (ON SMALL-SCALE AGRICULTURE)
Huschke (on small-scale agriculture)
Wheat
% going on feed* and rye as feed oats barley
%
5.84 Small farm
67.0 (p. 52)
35.0
77.7
20.5
9.09 Medium farm I
72.39 (p. 75)
12.22
68.31
13.90
29.56 Medium farm II
54.01 (p. 93)
52.59
75.91
46.52
3.55 Big farm
82.72 (p. 112)
11.81
74.70
24.08 (p. 165)
Σ=574.72÷8=71.84%
Σ=216.62÷8=27.08%
* Top figures in each column are for 1887-1891, lower figures, for 1893-
1897.—Ed.


Hence, data on feed:
(average amount for decade)
Head
Cereals
Feed
Outlays ha of double area of feed under cattle centners
ha
marks oats
Small farm

47.5
5.5


4.3
0.50

Medium farm I


15.5
1,290
7.6
4.5
0.53

Medium farm II

203.5
12.0

6.9
8.1
0.48

Big farm


42.1
3,226
8.9
2.7
0.63

Σ=132
565.5
75.1

0.57 below = average per head of cattle*
For a precise calculation of the area under feed on each
farm, the quantities of four cereals (wheat, rye, barley and oats)
fed to the livestock should be given in terms of hectares,
(1) the grain sown should be subtracted from the total crop;
(2) the net crop obtained should be divided by the number
of hectares under each cereal; (3) the number of double
centners fed to the livestock should be divided by the quo-
tient thus obtained.
This is too cumbersome a calculation for the four cereals,
the four farms, and the two five-year periods.
On the other hand, the error could not be too great if we take all the oats as being feed, for the oats not
going into feed are balanced out by the barley going into
feed.
* This sentence was subsequently pencilled in over the table heading;
it refers to the lower figures in columns 2, 3 and 4.—Ed.


Hence, let us assume that the whole area under oats is area under feed: (i.e., oats & mixture & all the fodder
grasses & wheat).
Total area under feed
Small farm
7.5
0.68
Medium farm I
23.1
0.79
Medium farm II
18.9
0.76
Big farm
51.0
0.76
Σ=100.50
0.75
The difference is not due to any difference in rates, but to
Huschke’s very detailed classification of cattle. He makes
a distinction between foals, young cattle, calves, suckling-
pigs (p. 53, Note 1), whereas I am unable to take account
of these minute distinctions from the data of the general
agricultural census of June 12, 1907.
This means that for a comparison, Huschke’s data
N.B.
should be converted into the terms of the June 12, 1907 data, i.e., all horses, and all cattle =
1.0; all pigs = 4; all sheep = 0.
We then have:
ha under feed
Small farm . . .
13.45 head of
7.5 average for
Medium farm I
.
31.85 cattle
23.1
10 (8) years
Medium farm II .
36.81
”
18.9
Big farm . . . .
88.8
”
51.0
170.91
100.50
0.58
These data show such (rel- atively) stable averages that
they can apparently be re- lied upon: 0.75 ha per head of cattle. But for a compa-
rison with the statistical data for the whole of Germany, it
should be taken into account that Huschke’s calculation of
cattle is different from mine.


and for the whole of Germany (1907)—13,648,628 ha of feed
(meadows & fodder plants & oats & mixed cereals) for
29,380,405 head of cattle, i.e., 0.46 per head.
This looks very much like being true, because Huschke’s
farmers are (very) good.
From Huschke’s data follow these conclusions
1) the big farm spends much more on artificial fertiliser
(p. 1 4 4)
2)
”
”
”
has a much deeper ploughing (p. 1 5 , Note )
3)
”
”
”
is better equipped with dead stock
4)
”
”
”
ensures the greatest crop increase in time
5)
”
”
”
feeds livestock better
6)
”
”
”
spends more on insurance (p. 139)
7)
”
”
”
obtains a better price for its products (p. 1 4 6) (p. 1 5 5).
1887-91 1893-97 (p. 139)
cf.
To 1) perha. Small farm
17.18
16.91—
p. 144
Medium farm 40.48 32.60— 22.80 20.74— Big farm
41.34 48.95&
To 3) A list of stock, p. 1 0 7 et al., p. 47.
Outlays on maintenance of dead stock, buildings and drainage in marks per ha.
1887-91
1893-97
Small farm
14.10
7.43
—6.67
Medium farm
13.38
15.95
&2.57
10.70
9.91
—0.79
Big farm
9.64
11.95
&2.31 in marks per ha seed, feed, ferti- liser
Why so?
TNNMNNU
TTNNNNNNMMNNNNNNUU
]]
]]
]]
]]
]]
]]
]]
]]
]]
]]
]]
]]
]]
]]
!
!


To 4) Yields of four cereals (rye, wheat, oats and barley)
in double centners per ha.
1887-91 1893-97
NB:
(p. 51) small farm
20.46
20.66
& 0.20 the land on (p. 73) medium farm
17.90
17.13
— 0.77 the big farm (p. 92)
19.09
21.06
& 1.97 is worse (p. 111) big farm
17.46
19.77
& 2.31 (p. 125)
Livestock feed (double centners)
Head in terms of Price of big cattle wheat rye barley oats
Σ
cattle 1)
& 10.75
2,765 (p. 47)
1887-91
2.19
1.68
14.24
30.74
48.85
11.3
3,019 Small farm
1893-97
1.44
0.40
8.81
35.56
46.21
—
—
—
&
—
&26.8
9,474 (p. 74)
12.78
1.34
21.16
77.04
112.32
30.6
11,091 Medium farm I
14.26
6.38
29.75
99.87
150.26
&
&
&
&
&
&23.5
10,574 (p. 87)
12.71
2.39
59.24
94.33
168.97
25.9
10,971 Medium farm II
25.71
33.74
57.38
122.09
238.92
&
&
—
&
&
— 67.1
23,442 (p. 112)
18.61
0.63
15.90
128.83
163.97
66.6
23,300 Big farm
15.40
1.15
41.25
146.60
204.40
—
&
&
&
&
1) Huschke gives 9. 4 and 10 (p. 53), but this does
not follow from the rates he himself gives (p. 53).
TNMNU


?
= Perennial fodder plants?
Use of Land (ha)


Small farm
6.6

0.4


—
13.00 0.5
13.64
5.50
Medium farm I
33.5


12 (1)
(50.16)
15.50
&1.5 (2)


—
61.12
Fallow
Medium farm II
20.5
2.5

2.5

2.5
43.5
0.99
45.06
12.49 (Rape)
2.5
Big farm 45.0
6.0
8.0
6.0 Rape
2.0 mix-
3.0

5.08
108.42 (?)42.08 ture, & maize, 2.0
4.0 Beet-
&
etc.
root
25 (?3)
1) Perennial fodder plants ....
2) Mixture for fattening ....
3) Others, (p. 110) ? 101—76=25
Wheat, rye oats & barley
Potatoes (Peas, beans, vetch) legumi- nous plants
Fodder-beet
Fodder vetch, maize, red clo- ver&alphalfa
Sugar-beet
S (total)
Meadows
Σ of all land
Total area under fodder (1&2&3)
!
!


Value of Livestock α) 1st five-year
Price period of β) 1st five-year
Head in terms aver- period of big cattle marks age head
of big cattle
I (Small farm)
α)
53.85÷5=10.75
2,765.00
52.3810= (p. 47)
523÷2=261.5 β)
56.60÷5=11.32
3,019.00
110.45÷10=11.04
5,784
÷2=2,892.0
261.5
5,784÷110.45=
52.385=261.5
II (Medium farm)
α)
135.2÷5=26.8
9,474.0 (p. 69)
β) 153.2÷5=30.6
11,091.0
287.4÷10=28.74
20,565
÷2=10,282.50
357.5
20,565÷287.4=
71.585=357.5
III (Medium farm) α)
70.6÷3=23.5
10,574.66 (p. 87)
β)
129.7÷5=25.9
10,971.00
200.3÷8=25.04
21,545.66
21,545.66÷200.3=
107.585=537.5
÷2=10,772.83
430.0
107.588=
860÷2=430
IV (Big farm)
α)
335.5÷5=67.1
23,442.0 (p. 107)
β) 333.25÷5=66.6
23,300.0
668.75÷10=66.8
46,742
÷2=23,371.00
349.5
46,742÷668.75=
69.985=349.5
P. 1  3 :
This is wrong.
2,892 should be
I— 13.64 ha 11 head of divided by 11.04, II— 61.10 big etc. But the
III— 45.06 cattle ratios do not
IV— 108.41 change.