Development of the Doctrine of Farming Systems in Russia

A. T. Bolotov

The numerous works of A. T. Bolotov (1738–1833) are directly related to the doctrine of farming systems: Notes on Arable Farming in General, On Fertilizing Lands, On the Division of Fields, and others.

A. T. Bolotov held the view that a rise in agriculture in both the Chernozem and Non-Chernozem zones could be achieved through improving the existing fallow farming system and developing a new, more advanced system at that time—the pasture system. In the first case, it was proposed to improve pre-sowing tillage, methods of fertilization of fields, the quality of seeds and their placement in the soil, and the improvement of existing meadows. In the second case, it was proposed to radically change agricultural production: introduce new crop rotations and establish rational proportions between arable farming and livestock farming.

A. T. Bolotov proposed transitioning, where conditions permitted, from the three-field system to a seven-field crop rotation of the pasture system:

• 1—winter grain crops (wheat and rye), 2—pasture, 3—best spring crops, 4—pasture, 5—worst spring crops, 6—pasture, 7—fallow;
• 1—winter grain crops, 2, 3—spring crops, 4–6—pasture, 7—fallow.

Unlike the three-field crop rotation of the fallow system, in which 2/3 of arable land is occupied by grain crops and 1/3 is under fallow, in the seven-field crop rotation of the pasture system, 3/7 of arable land is occupied by grain crops, 3/7 is under pasture, and 1/7 is under fallow. Thus, the sown area under grain crops was reduced from 67 to 43% of all arable land. However, A. T. Bolotov argued that grain crops would yield more than before, since the amount of feed, livestock, and manure would increase immeasurably, and the land would be better manured and cultivated.

For the economic evaluation of the proposed farming system and to prove its advantage over the fallow system, he applied the method of comparative analysis, which he called “balances.” For this, two plots of land equal in size and quality were compared, but different farming systems were used on them. For example, on the first plot, a three-field crop rotation of the fallow system was used; on the second, a seven-field rotation of the pasture system. This approach made it possible for the first time to determine production costs and net income.

I. M. Komov

I. M. Komov (1750–1792)—an agricultural scientist and economist—considered the most important tasks of agriculture to be the restoration and maintenance of soil fertility, which could be solved through plowing, fertilization with manure, and convertible crop rotation.

In 1785, I. M. Komov published the work On Agricultural Implements, which was republished six years later, and in 1788 the monograph On Agriculture was published.

He divided all plants into two groups: those depleting the soil, such as grain crops and oilseed crops, and those enriching it—root crops and grasses. From these positions, he sharply criticized the fallow system in use, noting the impossibility under such a system of developing animal husbandry and sufficiently fertilizing the land, which inevitably led to the exhaustion of natural fertility, a drop in yields, and lower farm incomes. I. M. Komov proposed establishing a rotation of sowing different plants so as not to exhaust the land and to obtain as much profit from it as possible. This could be achieved if vegetables, grain, and grass were sown alternately.

I. M. Komov, unlike A. T. Bolotov, proposed transitioning to a more intensive convertible farming system.

It is better to obtain much from little than little from much.

I. M. Komov

The justification of the new system was built on the relationship between arable farming and livestock farming, grain crops and forage crops, paying attention not only to the economic but also to the agrotechnical side of the farming system.

I. M. Komov proposed two variants of approximate six-field crop rotations:

• For regions where the land is poor or there is much land but few farmers: 1—spring grain crops with grasses, 2—grasses, 3—winter grain crops, 4—intertilled crops, 5—spring grain crops with grasses, 6—grasses.
• For regions where there is little land but many people: 1—winter grain crops, 2—spring grain crops, 3—intertilled crops, 4—spring crops with grasses, 5—grasses, 6—spring grain crops.

Emphasizing that the proposed crop rotations were only approximate, he pointed out that there are no general and permanent rules for all time “in such a diverse and changeable art” as agriculture. I. M. Komov advised first conducting experiments on small plots of land in order to understand “which grain or vegetable is more suitable for its land, which manure is more useful, and to what depth seeds should be sown more reliably.” And only then “begin sowing whole fields.”

A. T. Bolotov and I. M. Komov were guided by the desire to transform Russian agriculture and make it highly commercial and profitable. They saw the solution to this task in introducing new farming systems that would not exhaust the land but, on the contrary, increase its fertility. In their opinion, systems could combine agriculture with livestock farming, grain crops with forage crops. They considered maintaining proportions between agriculture and livestock farming to be the key condition for restoring, maintaining, and increasing soil fertility, increasing the productivity of agricultural labor, and improving farm profitability. A. T. Bolotov and I. M. Komov regarded agronomic and economic efficiency as a single whole.

V. A. Levshin, D. M. Poltoratsky, I. I. Samarin

At the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century, the increase in crop yields was hindered by the development of livestock farming, which was the only source of fertilizer at that time, and the development of livestock farming, in turn, was hindered by a shortage of feed. Therefore, Russian agricultural scientists of that time sought rational methods of cultivating various forage grasses in the fields of different zones of the country and conducted numerous experiments.

A great contribution to solving this issue was made by V. A. Levshin, a member of the Free Economic Society, and agricultural practitioners D. M. Poltoratsky and I. I. Samarin.

V. A. Levshin paid attention to the study of wild grasses, experimental grass sowing, and the improvement of the fallow farming system. Among his numerous works devoted to these issues, the following played a major role in the development of Russian agronomy and agricultural practice: Description of Forage Grasses Discovered in Tula Province, the Ease of Their Propagation by Sowing, and the Conversion of Some of Them to Economic Use, On the Settlement of the Steppes, On Plants Harmful and Useful to Livestock. These works allow us to call V. A. Levshin the founder of the doctrine of grass sowing in Russia and the creator of an improved fallow farming system, which in 19th-century agricultural literature became known as the “improved grain system” and was widely used on peasant farms in Moscow and Yaroslavl provinces.

V. A. Levshin proposed the following crop rotation for southern Russia: 1—winter crops, 2—spring crops, 3—grasses in their first year of use, 4—grasses in their second year of use. He understood that the dominant fallow system with three-field grain rotation had become the cause of a shortage of meadows and pastures, livestock, and manure, and was incapable of ensuring the restoration and maintenance of soil fertility.

D. M. Poltoratsky, an educated landowner, at approximately the same time began grass sowing on a scale broad for that time. On his estate Avchurino, he applied a new farming system. The entire land of the estate, which amounted to 2,700 desyatinas (about 2,900 ha), was divided into two plots—near and far. The near plot was assigned to a convertible crop rotation: 1—potatoes, peas, carrots, beans, lentils; 2—spring wheat, oats, barley; 3—clover for green fodder and hay; 4—winter wheat and rye. On the far plot, a seven-field crop rotation was used: 1–3—oats; 4—clover in its first year of use; 5—clover in its second year of use; 6—winter crops; 7—oats. Then the land was assigned to pasture or haymaking.

The transition to the new convertible farming system made it possible to increase grain yields and the number of livestock on the farm. However, the convertible rotation introduced by Poltoratsky did not become widespread in Russia. V. A. Levshin’s rotation, after undergoing great changes, eventually became widespread on farms in the central provinces of the Non-Chernozem zone.

A. D. Thaer, M. G. Pavlov

The classic work of I. M. Komov “On Agriculture” appeared 21 years earlier, and the outstanding work of A. T. Bolotov On the Division of Fields 37 years before the publication of the first volume of A. D. Thaer’s Principles of Rational Agriculture (1809), who is considered the founder of agricultural science and, in particular, of the doctrine of farming systems.

A. D. Thaer (1752–1828) founded and directed the oldest agricultural academy in Germany, the Möglin Agricultural Academy. His work Principles of Rational Agriculture in four volumes represented an extensive systematized course of lectures on all the main branches of agricultural knowledge. All farming systems existing at that time, A. D. Thaer divided into fallow-grain and convertible. He also included the pasture system in the convertible system, which he called “convertible husbandry with pasture.” A. D. Thaer developed what he considered the most effective four-field crop rotation for Germany: 1—potatoes, 2—barley, 3—clover, 4—winter rye.

In Russia, the development of the doctrine of farming systems was continued in the works of M. G. Pavlov: Agricultural Chemistry, Course in Agriculture, and others. M. G. Pavlov (1793–1848), after graduating from Moscow University in 1816, went on a long foreign trip, where he studied agriculture in Western European countries. For a year he studied under A. D. Thaer in Möglin and for three years traveled through the agricultural regions of Germany, Switzerland, France, and England.

M. G. Pavlov considered agricultural production from three points of view: as a craft, as an art, and as a science.

The lot of agriculture as a craft is immobility; as an art, blind luck or a series of farm management mistakes; as a science, calculated success.

M. G. Pavlov

Beginning in 1826, M. G. Pavlov compared various farming systems at the teaching experimental farm of the Moscow Agricultural School. He concluded that no matter how obvious the advantages of a particular system might seem, its universal introduction is impossible. Not one of the existing farming systems can everywhere and always be the best and dominant, since everything depends on local natural and economic conditions: on soil and climate, on prices for land, labor, various agricultural products and agricultural implements, on transport costs, etc. According to M. G. Pavlov, the best farming system is the one that under given conditions, under given circumstances, provides the highest income from a certain area of land without exhausting its fertility.

M. G. Pavlov divided farming systems into three classes: field, or fallow; pasture; and convertible. Evaluating these systems by their effect on fertility, M. G. Pavlov noted that the three-field system exhausts fertility. It returns less nutrients to the land than it extracts from it. The pasture system ensures the maintenance of fertility. The convertible system not only maintains but also increases it. He assigned the long-fallow farming system to the pasture class.

In Russian agriculture of that time, the main income came from grain cultivation and then livestock farming. The cultivation of industrial crops and the processing of agricultural products were very poorly developed.

M. G. Pavlov believed that the goal of any farming system is to obtain maximum profit, while the agrotechnical aspects of the system, primarily related to restoring, maintaining, and increasing soil fertility, are relegated to the background.

Ya. A. Litovsky, S. M. Usov

Professor Ya. A. Litovsky (1818–1846) of Moscow University, M. G. Pavlov’s successor in the Department of Agriculture, approached the study of farming systems from a natural-scientific perspective, taking into account conditions of soil fertility.

In Ya. A. Litovsky’s understanding, a farming system is the achievement of the highest profit primarily through the selection of an optimal ratio of crops in field crop rotation and measures for restoring and maintaining fertility.

S. M. Usov (1796–1859), in his work On Systems of Arable Farming, summarized the doctrine of farming systems in the pre-reform period. He was editor of Agricultural Gazette and Proceedings of the Free Economic Society.

All agricultural economists of the pre-reform period who contributed to the development of the doctrine of farming systems in Russia considered the farming system from the point of view of cultivating crop plants in fields for profit, that is, they expanded the concept of “farming system,” including in it not only agrotechnical but also economic aspects.

A. V. Sovetov, A. N. Engelgardt

The development of the doctrine of farming systems was continued in the works of A. V. Sovetov and A. N. Engelgardt. A. V. Sovetov considered farming systems a question combining agronomic and economic aspects.

The question of farming systems is not a strictly agronomic question; it extends into the domain of political economy.

A. V. Sovetov

A. V. Sovetov assigned the main role in any farming system to land relations; however, over time this situation changed, and along with it farming systems also changed.

The term “farming system” was first introduced by Professor A. V. Sovetov.

The various forms in which this or that method of land cultivation is expressed are customarily called farming systems.

A. V. Sovetov

A. V. Sovetov emphasized that the main form of agriculture among the Slavic peoples of ancient Russia was the slash-and-burn system, in which, to bring land into a state suitable for arable farming, they resorted to cutting and burning forest, shrubs, or sod. The slash-and-burn farming system predominates in wooded areas. In the southern steppe regions of Russia, the long-fallow farming system was widespread, in which a plot of land was sown with grain crops for several years in succession, and after soil exhaustion it was turned into long fallow used as pasture or hayland. After the exhausted land naturally restored its fertility, it was returned to use. In such a system, cultivated lands were not fertilized, and grass sowing and crop rotation were not used.

In the 1860s, the long-fallow system was widespread in the southern steppe regions of Russia, and the slash-and-burn system in the northern ones. In the remaining area of the European part of the state, the three-field fallow-grain system dominated, which, according to A. V. Sovetov, arose as a result of plowing up steppe long-fallow lands and increasing the sown areas of grain crops.

According to A. V. Sovetov, the fallow system can be used provided that meadow areas are twice as large as arable lands. An increase in the share of arable land in this system inevitably leads to a reduction in livestock numbers, manure, and lower yields. In addition, the fallow system has an exclusively grain orientation and is incompatible with crops such as clover, sugar beet, sunflower, and others that require different methods of soil tillage, which meant the need to improve the farming system.

Sugar beet cultivation in Russia initiated the introduction and development of a more intensive convertible system, the appearance of new crop rotations and field grass sowing, the use of more advanced agricultural implements, and the application of fertilizers and more thorough soil tillage.

A. V. Sovetov regarded the convertible farming system as the most productive and progressive compared with the fallow system, while he regarded the latter as more productive than the long-fallow system.

He is credited with generalizing more than half a century of experience in using the convertible system in various countries and describing the evolution of this system. He showed how the forms of convertible farming changed depending on soil-climatic and socio-economic conditions.

In his work On the Cultivation of Forage Grasses in Fields, A. V. Sovetov examined in detail the experience of using the convertible system, and especially grass sowing, in Russia. Field grass sowing in Russia first appeared at the end of the 18th century, and by the 1830s it was already quite widespread. The spread of field grass sowing led to the improvement of crop rotation, which was first four-field and then five-, six-, seven-field, etc., taking into account local soil-climatic and economic conditions. The range of grasses used also expanded. Besides red clover, which initially predominated in grass sowings, timothy, white clover, smooth brome, etc., began to be sown.

However, A. V. Sovetov did not consider the convertible system an absolute truth, and believed that agronomic science and practice needed to move further.

A. N. Engelgardt (1832–1893), in his works From the Village, On Farming in Northern Russia and the Use of Phosphorites There, and Chemical Foundations of Agriculture, did not use the term “farming system,” but used “field-cropping system” and “farm system.” By “field-cropping system” he understood a farming system, whereas by “farm system” he understood a system including the production specialization of the farm, the farming system, agricultural implements, and the social type of farm.

On the Batishchevo estate, A. N. Engelgardt introduced a 15-field crop rotation, the full rotation of which took place from 1871 to 1887. The change in the field-cropping system led to a change in the livestock system. The plowing up of waste lands and grass sod required the improvement of agricultural implements: the replacement of the sokha and wooden harrows with a plow and iron harrows.

A. N. Engelgardt distinguished extensive and intensive farming systems. He considered the main directions of the farm system to be the elimination of waste lands and bringing all suitable land into a cultivated state, fertilizing the land by applying manure, grass sowing, and the use of artificial fertilizers; the flax-growing and dairy-livestock specializations of the farm; and the improvement of soil-cultivating implements.

A. N. Engelgardt proved the interrelation between the farming system and production specialization. In fallow systems, the specialization of the farm can only be grain-based, while in pasture systems it can be dairy-livestock and flax-growing.

A. P. Lyudogovsky

The doctrine of systems of agriculture was founded by Professor A. P. Lyudogovsky (1840–1882) of the Petrovskaya Agricultural and Forestry Academy. He did not distinguish between the meanings of the terms “farm system” and “farming system.”

For the first time in agricultural science, A. P. Lyudogovsky attempted to separate from the farming system its component part—the field-cropping system—defining crop rotation as the key concept. He classified farming systems according to the main features that, in his opinion, expressed the essence of a farming system, its agronomic and economic content. These features include:

• degree of intensity;
• method of restoring soil fertility;
• position of productive livestock farming in the farm;
• distribution of all farm land between forage and grain crops.

The method of restoring soil fertility determines the character of land use and the farming system as a whole. As A. P. Lyudogovsky noted, the history of agriculture knows four methods of restoring fertility: long fallow, fallow tillage of the field, field grass sowing, and fertilization with manure and artificial mixtures.

In his opinion, the development of farming systems was a consequence of a natural-historical process, by which he understood “soil exhaustion by cultivation,” and an economic process, to which a more significant role was assigned.

A. P. Lyudogovsky developed his own scheme of the historical and geographical development of farming systems, based on data from England and Germany. The scheme reflected technical progress in agriculture. Each subsequent farming system was technically more advanced than the preceding one.

I. A. Stebut

I. A. Stebut was the first in agricultural science to give definitions of the concepts “farm system,” “field farming system,” “crop rotation,” and “cultivation system,” and showed the interrelation between them.

A “farm system” is a definite combination of branches participating in the formation of the income of a specialized farm. According to I. A. Stebut, the main feature of a farm system is its production specialization, or market product. Thus, three main farm systems were distinguished:

• field-cropping, in which the market product was grain;
• livestock, in which the market product was livestock products;
• factory, in which the market product was agricultural products subjected to industrial processing.

In the European part of Russia, field-cropping farm systems predominated, and field cropping itself, according to I. A. Stebut, is an integral part of all main farm systems, for example, livestock farming, distilling, sugar-making, butter-making, and starch-and-syrup production.

I. A. Stebut considered the field-cropping system to be part of the agricultural farm system, which is expressed in crop rotation.

Only that crop rotation which serves as the expression of a plan of field farming correctly outlined for local conditions, as part of the building that represents the whole farm.

I. A. Stebut

A. S. Ermolov

A. S. Ermolov (1846–1916), author of the work Organization of Field Farming, considered maximum profit to be the goal of rational farming in all times and among all peoples. The economic and natural conditions of agriculture may change, but the goal of farming remains unchanged; it is always and everywhere the same—the highest net income. To achieve this goal, A. S. Ermolov believed that the farm system must be improved following changes in economic and natural conditions.

A farm can be called rational if it is organized strictly in accordance with local conditions, meets all requirements of the environment, and receives a high net income.

By farming system, A. S. Ermolov understood not only the method of restoring and maintaining fertility, but also the ratio and alternation of crops in crop rotation, and the ratio between farm lands. In his opinion, crop rotation expresses not only the alternation of crops but also the production specialization of the farm.

D. N. Pryanishnikov

D. N. Pryanishnikov (1865–1948) considered crop rotation an objective necessity and one of the important conditions for increasing yields, while the diversity of the country’s soil-climatic and economic conditions makes it necessary to use various crop rotations and methods of cultivating agricultural crops. He recommended using four-field fallow-intertilled and convertible rotations; in his view, the latter were the most progressive, alternating grain crops, intertilled crops, and forage grasses, mainly legumes as nitrogen fixers.

Convertible crop rotations appeared to be a means of rapidly and simultaneously raising and growing grain farming, livestock farming, and the production of industrial crops.

If a field of clover is added to a four-field crop rotation, the yield of grain crops doubles compared with a three-field rotation, and with the use of mineral fertilizers against a clover background, it quadruples.

D. N. Pryanishnikov

V. R. Williams

V. R. Williams (1863–1939) defined a farming system as a complex of agrotechnical measures aimed at restoring, maintaining, and constantly increasing fertility. He developed a system of agrotechnical practices for restoring and increasing fertility, which he called the grass-field system of farming, including the rational organization and use of the entire farm territory, a system of two crop rotations—field and forage—a soil tillage system and care of crops, a fertilization system, and the planting of field-protective forest belts.

According to V. R. Williams, the integral factor of the fertility of the arable layer is soil structure. It was precisely this assertion that caused a number of gross errors made in the development and introduction of the grass-field farming system.

V. R. Williams emphasized that in the grass-field system the inseparability of its four elements is extremely important. Later he added to these four elements a seed-growing system, consisting in sowing with selected seeds of high-yielding varieties adapted to local conditions, and a land-reclamation system, including irrigation reclamation in areas of insufficient moisture and drainage reclamation in areas of excessive moisture.

The progressiveness of the grass-field system is visible when it is compared with the systems that historically preceded it. It represents practical recommendations aimed at raising agriculture. But the grass-field farming system could not solve the grain and livestock problems in the country. The widespread introduction of grass-field crop rotations in various regions of the country showed that they are economically effective for the Non-Chernozem zone and completely ineffective in the steppe arid regions of the European part of Russia.