4.—Agriculture on a Large and Small Scale.—Electric Appliances.

While even among Socialists some persons still hold the opinion, that small farmers are able to compete with the large agricultural enterprises by means of their own thrift and that of their families, experts have come to hold a different opinion. By over-exertion the peasant may achieve his utmost, but from the standpoint of a civilized human being his position is a deplorable one. No matter how much he may achieve, the modern technical development and the science of agriculture can achieve more. But, above all, only by the appliance of science and technique does the peasant attain the full development of a civilized human being, while to-day he is the slave of his property and the helot of his creditor.

The advantages of farming on a large scale are immense. To begin with, the area that can be utilized is considerably enlarged, because the numerous paths and roads and ridges necessitated by the disjointed properties, disappear. Fifty persons, working on a large farm—regardless of the more rational implements used by them—can accomplish much more than 50 persons working on scattered farms. Only farming on a large scale makes it possible to combine and direct the forces so as to obtain the best results. To this must be added the immense advantage derived from the application of all kinds of machinery, the use of the produce for industrial purposes, the more rational methods of cattle and poultry breeding, etc. Electric appliances especially furnish advantages to agriculture that overshadow every other method of cultivation. P. Mack[240] has ascertained that the introduction of machinery led to a saving of over 5000 days’ labor by horses, and that a single investment of 40,000 marks’ capital led to a cheapening of the product of over 12,000 marks or 48 marks per hectare. This computation did not even take into consideration the increase in produce from the introduction of deep ploughing, or the more exact cultivation by machinery.[241]

Deep ploughing led to an increase of from 20 to 40 per cent. in the cultivation of grain, and up to 50 per cent. in the cultivation of potatoes, turnips, and the like. Taking an average of only 20 per cent., Mack showed that, on the farm under consideration, this meant a gain of 55.45 marks per hectare; together with the saving referred to above, this made a gain of 103.45 marks per hectare. Mack pointed out that it was necessary to establish a sufficient number of power plants, whereby not only all the machinery employed could be set in motion, but heat and light could also be supplied. By means of the electric plants, the dwellings, streets, stables, barns, store-houses and factories can be lighted, and if it should become necessary, crops can be reaped at night. Mack calculated that, by the general introduction of electricity, two-thirds of the animals employed for drawing and carrying loads (1,741,300 heads) might be dispensed with, which would imply an annual net profit of 1,002,989,000 marks.

The application of electricity makes agriculture more and more a purely technical, industrial process. The following compilation shows the manifold applicability of electricity in agriculture:[242] The following can be run by electric motors: 1. Machines that heighten the gross proceeds: A. for tilling: seed-assorter and electric ploughs. B. for the harvest: mowing-machines with binders; machines for reaping potatoes; irrigation-works. 2. Machines for reducing the cost of production: A. lifting machines, unloading machines in barns, grain elevators, pumps for liquid manure. B. means of transportation: groves, straps and bellows, field-railways, spindles and cranes. C. for utilization: straw-presses, corn-mills, chaff-cutters. 3. Machines of agricultural industry: A. distillery machines and machines for the manufacture of starch; water-pumps for various purposes. B. dairy implements: refrigerators, centrifuges, churners, kneaders, presses, etc. C. saw-mills, circular-saws and saw-frames. D. drills, turning-lathes, machines for wheel-making. 4. Food-chopping machines, for cattle-breeding: chaff-cutters, turnip-choppers, meal, potato and oat-grinders, etc.; squeezers, water-pumps. Investigations have shown that about 15 per cent. of all farm-labor can be performed in this economical way, by the aid of electric motors.

The amount of manual labor power required for the threshing and preparation of 1000 kilograms of grain was ascertained:

There is nothing to prevent the general introduction of electric ploughs. Like the electric railway, the electric plough has already attained a high degree of development. The heavy and expensive steam-plough can be rationally employed only on large areas and for deep ploughing. It is especially serviceable for heightening the crops of potatoes, etc. But the electric plough can be used equally well for deep and shallow ploughing. It makes it possible to cultivate the soil on steep inclines, where it is difficult to plough with horses, or oxen even. It is a great labor-saving device, as may be seen from the following comparison of expenses for ploughing, when horses, oxen, a steam-plough and an electric plough were used:

The simple supply and distribution of electric energy, the ease and simplicity with which electric machines can be run and kept in order, make their advantages to agriculture paramount, especially as a thin wire suffices to supply the power to extensive areas. As the employment of electric machines would necessitate a network of electric wires across the country, electric motor-power in agriculture could easily be combined with electro-cultivation, the direct influence of electricity on the growth of plants.

During recent years plant physiologists, as also practical agriculturists, were eagerly engaged in studying the influence of electricity on the growth and fructification of plants, especially the various kinds of grain. The task was accomplished by the late Professor R. S. Lemstroem (died 1906). He spread a net of wire across a large area of cultivated ground which, by means of a battery, he charged with positive electricity, while the negative pole remained on the ground, and subjected a field, or part of one, to an electric current during its entire period of vegetation, while an adjacent field, which was under observation also, remained uninfluenced. The experiments were tried upon various areas of different size, and, wherever carried out properly, they all showed the same favorable results. Firstly, the crop increased from 30 to over 100 per cent.; secondly, it ripened in a shorter time, and thirdly, the quality was considerably improved. There were still a few practical short-comings connected with this method, which Newman, an English agriculturist, succeeded in removing. He succeeded in interesting a famous English physicist, Oliver Lodge, in Lemstroem’s method. According to recent reports from Lodge these experiments have been successively tried from 1906 to 1908; the area under observation has been extended to ten hectares, and it was satisfactorily proven that the charged wire net may be spread as high as five meters above the ground, without lessening the favorable influence of the electric current on the harvest. This altitude makes it possible to drive loaded wagons beneath the wire net and to perform all agricultural tasks without interference, while Lemstroem’s net was not to be more than 40 centimeters above the plants to be influenced by the electric current.[243] Several millers instituted comparative baking experiments, and the electrified wheat was found to make better flour than that which had not been electrified. So the new method is ripe for being successfully introduced into agriculture and horticulture.

Fowler’s steam-plough, with two compound locomotives, requires an area of 5000 hectares for its satisfactory application, which is larger than the cultivated area of most peasant communities. It has been calculated that, if the soil under cultivation in 1895 had been cultivated with the application of all available machinery and all other modern advantages, a saving of 1600 million marks would have been realized. According to Ruhland[244] the successful combating of the diseases of grain alone would make the import of grain into Germany superfluous. In his book on “Our Meadows and Produce of the Fields,” Dr. Sonnenberg informs us, that Bavarian agriculture suffers a loss of 30 per cent. annually, owing to the spread of weeds in the fields. On two areas of 4 square meters each, one of which was full of weeds, while the other had been kept clear of weeds, Nowatzki attained the following results:

Dr. v. Ruemker, Professor at the Agricultural Institute of the University of Breslau, declares that a careful economy of the nourishment of the soil is almost entirely wanting in Germany. The cultivation of the soil and the sowing are done in such a thoughtless manner, according to old, acquired habits, and by means of such insufficient and imperfect tools, that the returns of all the labor must remain poor and unsatisfactory. He claims that the German farmers do not even perform the easy task of rationally assorting their seed. Professor v. Ruemker showed by the following table how the harvest can be increased per hectare by assorting the seed:

So, according to this table, 1200 kilograms more of corn might be obtained per hectare by properly assorting the seed, which, valued at 15 marks per cwt., represents a gain of 180 marks. Estimating the cost of assorting 4.40 marks per hectare at the most, there still remains a clear cash profit of 175.60 marks per hectare for the grain alone, not counting the additional gain in straw and chaff. By a number of experimental cultivations, Ruemker furthermore ascertained that by selecting that kind of grain best suited to each particular vicinity, the harvests might be increased and the gross receipts improved, on an average, as follows:

The gain obtained from assorting the seed and from a proper selection of the kind of wheat taken together, would, in the raising of wheat alone, increase the harvest by 1500 to 2000 kilograms of grain, or by 220 to 295 marks per hectare.

In a paper on “The Future of German Agriculture,” it has been shown how tremendously all agricultural products could be increased by sufficient and appropriate fertilization, by supplying mineral manure, as hypophosphate, phosphoric acid, etc. The German harvest of wheat might be increased on an average of 36 cwts. per hectare, and the harvest of rye by 24 cwts. per hectare. Moreover, a considerable portion of the land used for the cultivation of rye at present, might, by proper manuring, be used for the cultivation of wheat, so that the average harvest of grain for bread—two-fifths of wheat, three-fifths of rye—might amount to 28.8 cwts. per hectare. After the deduction of seed and of grain of inferior quality, there would still remain 26 cwts. per hectare to feed the nation. The 7.9 million hectares that are planted with wheat and rye at present might be increased by an additional 1.5 million hectares of pasture, fallow-ground, heaths and moor-land, so that, with an average crop of 26 cwts. per hectare and a cultivated area of 9.4 million hectares, a production of 251.92 million cwts. of grain for bread might be obtained. With an annual consumption of 175 kilograms for every person, enough grain for bread could be raised to supply the needs of 144 million persons. At the time of the census of 1900, Germany had a population of approximately 56,345,000 inhabitants, and even at that time science and technics were sufficiently far advanced that the German soil might have supplied a population two and a half times as large with bread. Under the present agricultural system, with the scattered private ownership of land, Germany is obliged to import annually about one-ninth of its requisite supply of wheat and rye. If, under the present agricultural system, similar quantities were to be raised, it would mean so great an increase in the cost of articles of food, that a majority of the people could not afford to buy them, and that would not answer the purpose. These results can be obtained only by communistic methods, when carried out on the largest scale; but of course the authors quoted above do not think of that possibility. According to calculations made by them, by means of an intensified cultivation of the soil, the products of German agriculture might be increased as follows:

If we furthermore take into consideration the suggestions by Mack, quoted above, showing that a very great number of animals for drawing and carrying loads might be dispensed with by the introduction of electric power, we find that the breeding of cattle for nourishment might be considerably increased, or that much of the land used for pasture might be planted with food for man.

Another field of agricultural activity that might be developed to a far greater extent, is poultry breeding. The value of eggs imported by Germany annually amounts to 149.7 million marks (1907), and that of live poultry to over 40 million marks. The institutions for raising and breeding poultry are still sadly undeveloped. The concentrated methods of agriculture on a large scale will lead to the concentration of farming establishments, such as stables, store-houses, ice-houses, fodder and feeding; much time, labor and material will be saved, and practical advantages will be obtained that are inaccessible to small and medium-sized establishments, and are but rarely enjoyed by large ones. How insufficient, for instance, are the hygienic institutions in most stables, how inadequate are the provisions made for the feeding and care of the cattle and poultry! That cleanliness, air and light are as necessary to animals as to human beings and have a favorable influence on their condition, is a fact known but little among peasants of the twentieth century. It is self-understood that, by a general dissemination and application of this knowledge, milk, butter, cheese, eggs, honey, meat, etc., will be obtained under far more sanitary and favorable conditions than at present. By a skillful combination and application of human labor power and machinery, not only the cultivation of the fields, but also the reaping of the harvest will be done by ways and means unknown to us to-day. The erection of great halls for shelter will make it possible to gather in the crops during any kind of weather, and, by bringing them in quickly, the enormous losses will be avoided that are so frequent now. According to v. d. Goltz, during one single unfavorable harvest-time, 8 to 9 million marks are lost on crops in Mecklenburg, and in the government district of Koenigsberg, from 12 to 15 million marks.