Long Term Socio-Ecological Research pp 269-296

Part of the Human-Environment Interactions book series (HUEN, volume 2)

Sustaining Agricultural Systems in the Old and New Worlds: A Long-Term Socio-Ecological Comparison

Chapter

Abstract

During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, tens of millions of migrants left Europe for the Americas. Using case studies from Austria and Kansas, this chapter compares the socio-ecological structures of the agricultural communities immigrants left to those they created on the other side of the Atlantic. It employs material and energy flow accounting (MEFA) methods to examine the social metabolic similarities and differences between Old World and New World farm systems at either end of the migration chain. Nine indicators reveal significant differences in land use strategy, labour deployment and the role of livestock. Whereas Old World farms had abundant human and animal labour but a shortage of land, Great Plains farms had excess land and a shortage of labour and livestock. Austrian farmers returned 90% of extracted nitrogen to cropland, sustaining soils over many generations, but they produced little marketable surplus. A key difference was livestock density. Old World communities kept more animals than needed for food and labour to supply manure that maintained cropland fertility. Great Plains farmers used few animals to exploit rich grassland soils, returning less than half of the nitrogen they extracted each year. Relying on a stockpiled endowment of nitrogen, they produced stupendous surpluses for market export, but watched crop yields decline between 1880 and 1940. Austrian immigrants to Kansas saw their return on labour increase 20-fold. Both farm systems were efficient in their own way, one producing long-term stability, the other remarkable commercial exports. Kansas farmers faced a soil nutrient crisis by the 1940s, one that they solved in the second half of the twentieth century by importing fossil fuels. Austrian and Great Plains agriculture converged thereafter, with dramatically increased productivity based on oil, diesel fuel, petroleum-based pesticides and synthetic nitrogen fertilisers manufactured from natural gas.

Keywords

Historical agro-ecosystems Socio-Ecological metabolism Agricultural frontier Material and energy flow accounting Agricultural land use Biophysical economy Soil sustainability Austro-Hungarian agriculture Great Plains sustainability Grassland ecosystem 

References

  1. Allen, R. C. (2008). The nitrogen hypothesis and the English agricultural revolution. A biological analysis. The Journal of Economic History, 68, 182–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antoni, M. (1992). Nach Amerika… Materialien zur Landesausstellung in Güssing. Eisenstadt: Pädagogisches Institut des Bundes für Burgenland.Google Scholar
  3. Ayres, R. U., & Simonis, U. E. (1994). Industrial metabolism: Restructuring for sustainable development. Tokyo/New York/Paris: United Nations University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Boserup, E. (1965). The conditions of agricultural growth. The economics of agrarian change under population pressure. Chicago: Aldine/Earthscan.Google Scholar
  5. Boserup, E. (1981). Population and technological change – A study of long-term trends. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Burke, I. C., Lauenroth, W. K., Cunfer, G. A., Barrett, J., Mosier, A., & Lowe, P. (2002). Nitrogen in the Central Grasslands Region of the United States. BioScience, 52, 813–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cadastral Schätzungs Elaborat der Steuergemeinde Theyern, held at Landesarchiv St. Pölten.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, B. M. S., & Overton, M. (Eds.). (1991). Land, labour and livestock: Historical studies in European agricultural productivity. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cunfer, G. A. (2004). Manure matters on the great plains frontier. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 34, 539–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cunfer, G., & Krausmann, F. (2009). Sustaining soil fertility. Agricultural practice in the old and new worlds. Global Environment, 4, 8–47.Google Scholar
  11. Cusso, X., Garrabou, R., & Tello, E. (2006). Social metabolism in an agrarian region of Catalonia (Spain) in 1860 to 1870: Flows, energy balance and land use. Ecological Economics, 58, 49–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Decatur County Historical Book Committee. (1983). Decatur County, Kansas. Lubbock: Craftsman Printers, Inc.Google Scholar
  13. Dujmovits, W. (1992). Die Amerikawanderung der Burgenländer. Pinkafeld: Desch-Drechsler.Google Scholar
  14. Finanz-Ministerium, K. K. (Ed.). (1858). Tafeln zur Statistik des Steuerwesens im österreichischen Kaiserstaate mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der directen Steuern und des Grundsteuerkatasters. Wien.Google Scholar
  15. Fischer-Kowalski, M. (1998). Society’s metabolism. The intellectual history of material flow analysis, part I: 1860–1970. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2, 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fischer-Kowalski, M., & Haberl, H. (2007). Socioecological transitions and global change: Trajectories of social metabolism and land use. Cheltenham/Northhampton: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  17. Fischer-Kowalski, M., & Weisz, H. (1999). Society as a hybrid between material and symbolic realms. Toward a theoretical framework of society-nature interaction. Advances in Human Ecology, 8, 215–251.Google Scholar
  18. Frissel, M. J. (Ed.). (1978). Cycling of mineral nutrients in agricultural ecosystems. Amsterdam/Oxford/New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  19. Guzman Casado, G. I., & Gonzalez de Molina, M. (2009). Preindustrial agriculture versus organic agriculture: The land cost of sustainability. Land Use Policy, 26, 502–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haberl, H., Winiwarter, V., Andersson, K., Ayres, R. U., Boone, C. G., Castillio, A., Cunfer, G., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Freudenburg, W. R., Furman, E., Kaufmann, R., Krausmann, F., Langthaler, E., Lotze-Campen, H., Mirtl, M., Redman, C. A., Reenberg, A., Wardell, A. D., Warr, B., & Zechmeister, H. (2006). From LTER to LTSER: Conceptualizing the socio-economic dimension of long-term socio-ecological research. Ecology and Society, 11, 13. (Online), www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art13/
  21. Hass, H. J., Evans, C. E., & Miles, E. F. (1957). Nitrogen and carbon changes in Great Plains soils as influenced by cropping and soil treatments. Washington, DC: GPO.Google Scholar
  22. Hayami, Y., & Ruttan, V. W. (1985). Agricultural development. An international perspective. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Herndon Union Cemetery. Herndon Union Cemetery Records, Rawlins County, Kansas. Google Scholar
  24. Hurt, R. D. (1987). Indian agriculture in America: Prehistory to the present. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  25. ICPSR. (2011). The Great Plains Population and Environment project. Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research. www.icpsr.umich.edu/plains. Accessed 28 June 2011.
  26. Kansas GenWeb. (2009). Homestead records. http://skyways.lib.ks.us/genweb/decatur/Land%20Records/finley_homesteading.htm. Accessed 16 Feb 2009.
  27. Kansas State Board of Agriculture. (1885, 1895, 1905, 1915, 1920, 1925, 1930, 1935, 1940). Population census manuscripts, Decatur County, Kansas.Google Scholar
  28. Karl, T. R., Williams, C. N. Jr., Quinlan, F. T., & Boden, T. A. (1990). United States Historical Climatology Network (HCN) serial temperature and precipitation data. No. 3404 (pp. 1–389). Oak Ridge: Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center; Oak Ridge National Laboratory.Google Scholar
  29. Koning, N. (1994). The failure of agrarian capitalism: Agrarian politics in the U.K., Germany, Netherlands, and the U.S.A., 1846–1919. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krausmann, F. (2004). Milk, manure and muscular power. Livestock and the industrialization of agriculture. Human Ecology, 32, 735–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krausmann, F. (2008). Land use and socio-economic metabolism in pre-industrial agricultural systems: Four nineteenth-century Austrain villages in comparison (Social Ecology Working Paper, 72). Vienna: IFF Social Ecology.Google Scholar
  32. Lego, K. (1968). Geschichte des österreichischen Grundkatasters. Wien: Bundesamt für Eich- und Vermessungswesen.Google Scholar
  33. Liu, J. G., Dietz, T., Carpenter, S. R., Folke, C., Alberti, M., Redman, C. L., Schneider, S. H., Ostrom, E., Pell, A. N., Lubchenco, J., Taylor, W. W., Ouyang, Z. Y., Deadman, P., Kratz, T., & Provencher, W. (2007). Coupled human and natural systems. Ambio, 36, 639–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Loomis, R. S. (1978). Ecological Dimensions of Medieval Agrarian Systems. An Ecologist Responds. Agricultural History, 52, 478–484.Google Scholar
  35. Loomis, R. S. (1984). Traditional agriculture in America. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 15, 449–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Loomis, R. S., & Connor, D. J. (1992). Crop ecology: Productivity and management in agricultural systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Marull, J., Pino, J., & Tello, E. (2008). The loss of landscape efficiency: An ecological analysis of land use changes in western Mediterranean agriculture (Valles County, Catalonia, 1853–2004). Global Environment, 2, 112–150.Google Scholar
  38. McCloskey, D. (2001). English open fields as behavior toward risk. In Deirdre N. McCloskey and Stephen Ziliak (Eds.), Measurement and meaning in economics: The essential Dierdre McCloskey (pp. 17–63). Cheltenham: E. Elgar.Google Scholar
  39. Moritsch, A. (1972). Der Franziszeische Grundsteuerkataster Quelle für die Wirtschaftsgeschichte und historische Volkskunde. East European Quarterly, 3, 438–448.Google Scholar
  40. Parton, W. J., Gutmann, M. P., Williams, S. A., Easter, M., & Ojima, D. (2005). Ecological impact of historical land-use patterns in the Great Plains: A methodological assessment. Ecological Applications, 15, 1915–1928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Persson, K. G. (1999). Grain markets in Europe, 1500–1900: Integration and deregulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Prickler, L. (2003). Ebene im Osten: Der Seewinkel im Bezirk Neusiedl am See. In E. Bruckmüller, E. Hanisch, & R. Sandgruber (Eds.), Geschichte der österreichischen Land- und Forstwirtschaft im 20. Jahrhundert. Regionen, Betriebe, Menschen (pp. 741–794). Wien: Ueberreuter.Google Scholar
  43. Projektgruppe Umweltgeschichte. (1997). Historische und ökologische Prozesse in einer Kulturlandschaft. Studie im Auftrag des BMWVK, Endbericht. Wien.Google Scholar
  44. Projektgruppe Umweltgeschichte. (1999). Kulturlandschaftsforschung: Historische Entwicklung von Wechselwirkungen zwischen Gesellschaft und Natur. Wien: CD-ROM, Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft und Verkehr.Google Scholar
  45. Sandgruber, R. (1978). Die Agrarrevolution in Österreich. Ertragssteigerung und Kommerzialisierung der landwirtschaftlichen Produktion im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert. In A. Hoffmann (Ed.), Österreich-Ungarn als Agrarstaat. Wirtschaftliches Wachstum und Agrarverhältnisse in Österreich im 19. Jahrhundert (pp. 195–271). Wien: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik.Google Scholar
  46. Sandgruber, R. (1979). Der Franziszeische Kataster und die dazugehörigen Steuerschätzungsoperate als wirtschafts- und sozialhistorische Quellen. Mitteilungen aus dem niederösterreichischen Landesarchiv, 3, 16–28.Google Scholar
  47. Schaschl, E. (2007). Rekonstruktion der Arbeitszeit in der Landwirtschaft im 19. Jahrhundert am Beispiel von Theyern in Niederösterreich (Social Ecology Working Paper, 96, pp. 1–174). Vienna: IFF Soziale Ökologie.Google Scholar
  48. Schüle, H. (1989). Raum-zeitliche Modelle – ein neuer methodischer Ansatz in der Agrargeschichte. Das Beispiel der bernischen Viehwirtschaft als Träger und Indikator der Agrarmodernisierung 1790 – 1915. Bern: Lizensiatsarbeit, historisches Institut der Universität Bern.Google Scholar
  49. Shiel, R. (2006a). An introduction to soil nutrient flows. In J. R. McNeill & V. Winiwarter (Eds.), Soils and societies: Perspectives from environmental history (pp. 7–12). Isle of Harris: White Horse Press.Google Scholar
  50. Shiel, R. (2006b). Nutrient flows in pre-modern agriculture in Europe. In J. R. McNeill & V. Winiwarter (Eds.), Soils and societies: Perspectives from environmental history (pp. 216–242). Isle of Harris: White Horse Press.Google Scholar
  51. Sieferle, R. P., Krausmann, F., Schandl, H., & Winiwarter, V. (2006). Das Ende der Fläche. Zum gesellschaftlichen Stoffwechsel der Industrialisierung. Köln: Böhlau.Google Scholar
  52. Sonnlechner, C. (2001). Umweltgeschichte und Siedlungsgeschichte. Das Waldviertel. Zeitschrift für Heimat- und Regionalkunde des Waldviertels und der Wachau, 50, 361–382.Google Scholar
  53. Standard Atlas of Decatur County, Kansas. (1905). Chicago: George A. Ogle & Co.Google Scholar
  54. Stevenson, F. J. (Ed.). (1982). Nitrogen in agricultural soils (Agronomy Series No. 22). Madison: American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of American, and Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
  55. Sylvester, K. M., Leonard, S. H., Gutmann, M. P., & Cunfer, G. (2006). Demography and environment in grassland settlement: Using linked longitudinal and cross-sectional data to explore household and agricultural systems. History and Computing, 14, 31–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. U.S. Population Census. (1880, 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930). U.S. Population Census manuscript schedules, Decatur County, Kansas.Google Scholar
  57. Van Zanden, J. L. (1991). The first green revolution: The growth of production and productivity in European agriculture, 1870–1914. The Economic History Review, 44, 215–239.Google Scholar
  58. Wedel, W. R. (1978). The prehistoric plains. In J. D. Jennings (Ed.), Ancient Native Americans. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  59. Williamson, J. G. (2006). Globalization and the poor periphery before 1950. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  60. Winiwarter, V., & Sonnlechner, C. (2001). Der soziale Metabolismus der vorindustriellen Landwirtschaft in Europa. Stuttgart: Breuninger Stiftung.Google Scholar
  61. Worster, D. (1990). Transformations of the earth: Toward an agroecological perspective in history. The Journal of American History, 76, 1087–1106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of History, School of Environment and SustainabilityUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada
  2. 2.Institute of Social Ecology Vienna (SEC)Alpen-Adria Universitaet Klagenfurt, Wien, GrazViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations