###

# Agriculture

As before, the determining feature of Transylvanian agriculture was the balance between animal husbandry and crop farming. Change came almost simultaneously in a number of spheres: the shift in balance from animal husbandry to farming, the disappearance of commonly-held land, the development of new forms of cultivation, and the reform of socage.

Statistics revealed a shift in favour of crop farming. Tax records show that, in 1772, Transylvania's livestock holdings included 403,495 draught animals (horses, oxen), 223,598 cows, 86,628 foals and calves, 591,210 sheep, 75,106 goats, 251,309 pigs, and 47,167 beehives. If, as subsequent statistics reliably attest, the ratio of horses to cattle was 1:4.5, then there were 129,767 horses and 583,924 cattle. Statistical reports vary considerably with regard to the situation in 1819–20. According to the data presented by Schubert and Hann, there were at the time 170,000 horses, 700,000 cattle, and 800,000 sheep; Liechtenstern and Lassú, for their part, report 267,000 horses, 597,000 cattle, and 632,000 sheep.

The statistics from the end of the period show diverse patterns of change. There were 156,000 horses in 1829, and 157,000 in 1830 (horses belonging to tax-payers numbered 131,139 in 1828 and 114,717 in 1830); the figures for cattle were 715,000 in 1829 and 711,000 in 1830 (of which 442,419 belonged to taxpayers in 1828 and 465,135 in 1830). The number of sheep at the end of period can be estimated at between 1,270,000 and 1,300,000. However, these {2-626.} statistics must be treated with caution. It is not clear how the flocks of transhumant shepherds were accounted for (the reports for 1828–30 indicate 900,000–950,000 sheep). Another unknown is the number of livestock taxpayers purposely failed to report during the official surveys that produced the 1828–30 statistics. If the statistics for 1772 and 1828–30 are taken as broadly accurate, then it appears that the number of assessable horses in Transylvania underwent little change over the period, while the stock of cattle shrank by some 20–30 percent. The stock of sheep may have expanded, but statistical comparisons are risky, for it is not clear when data began to be assembled on the flocks of transhumant shepherds, and with what degree of accuracy. Thus the surveys of taxable livestock in Transylvania reveal a general picture of stagnation and contraction.

The other side of the balance is reflected in the area of land under cultivation. In 1767, the area devoted to grain production was around 173,000 hectares (608,896 köböl, or some 300,000 cadastral acres). Benigni reports that there were 378,326 hectares (663,730 cadastral acres) of ploughland in 1772; although this figure obviously includes both cultivated and fallow land, it may err on the high side. According to Marienburg, by 1791 there were 426,487 hectares (748,223 15/32 cadastral acres) of taxable ploughland. Lichtenstern calculated that there were, in 1817, 1,425,000 hectares (2.5 million cadastral acres) of ploughland and meadow, which, given that the common ratio between the two was 2:1, translates into some 946,000 hectares (1.66 million cadastral acres) of ploughland — an unrealistically high figure.

The more reliable, official statistics of 1828 show 390,000 hectares (685,399 cadastral acres) of taxable ploughland. If, by conservative estimate, the ratio of allodial land to the villein's ploughland is taken as 1:2, and if it is borne in mind that there were no allodia in free peasant localities (in the Királyföld and part of the Székelyföld), then there must have been some 513,000 hectares {2-627.} (900,000 cadastral acres) of ploughland at the end of the period. This would signify an increase of around 50 percent between 1770 and 1830. 0n the other hand, there was very little growth in the area under cultivation after 1830. In 1851, Transylvania's ploughland encompassed 2,186,597.85 köböl, which was roughly equivalent to 623,000 hectares. Thus the revolution in Transylvanian agriculture, when animal husbandry was displaced by crop farming as the dominant activity, occurred between 1770 and 1830 — several hundred years later than in western Europe, and later than in Hungary as well.

Let us now consider in greater detail the first of the two principal branches agriculture, animal husbandry.

In horse breeding, Spanish breeds, which became fashionable in the mid-1700s, had given way to Arabian horses; in the process, breeding stallions were imported from Wallachia, Moldavia, Poland, and the Turkish lands. At the turn of the 19th century, the fashion changed again, in favour of English breeds, but trade restrictions made it difficult to obtain good English stud horses. Only the elder Miklós Wesselényi managed to assemble a good English stud, thereby sustaining the high reputation for horse breeding of his estate at Zsibó. The traditional Hungarian thoroughbred came to serve mainly as a farm horse, notably in the Csík and Hátszeg districts. At the very end of this period, around 1830, horse breeding underwent another 'revolution' when the younger Miklós Wesselényi revived the fashion for English horses. The more forward-looking members of Transylvania's landed gentry realized that breeding stud horses could be a profitable business. (In the late 1700s, the Treasury had studs to service the mares of priests and peasants, but there were many complaints about the age, health, and overwork of the stallions.) The nobility recognized that trading in horses could be profitable as well. These changes in attitude must have contributed to the modernization of horse breeding. Stables became less fancy and more functional, foals were weaned {2-628.} much earlier, and fodder came to include not only hay, but also fresh-cut grass, chaff, and the residue from the distillation of brandy. These practices became widespread only after 1830.

There were no changes in fashion to stimulate innovation in cattle breeding. One problem was that breeding was often effected with young, immature bulls, producing cattle of uneconomically small size. Due to infertility and poor care, the cows' yield of milk was low as well. In summer, the cows were grazed on arid pastures, and not driven to shade at midday; they were not given the fodder that might have increased their milk yield, and many places lacked adequate watering facilities.

Tradition was even more dominant in sheep breeding. The number of sheep in transhumance reached a peak during this period. The figure for 1792, 1.5 million, is probably exaggerated, but there is little reason to question the 900,000–950,000 figure in the official statistics for 1823–30. Change came about only at the very end of the period, in consequence of a strong demand for wool; a better breed of sheep, from Hungary, was first introduced in 1826 on the Wesselényi estate at Zsibó, which could be regarded as Transylvania's model farm.

Changes were more numerous in the case of crop farming. The communal land that was periodically divided up for cultivation became a rarity in Transylvania. Beginning in the 1770s, pressure from the government increased the sale into freehold of such lands in the Királyföld. Communal lands survived in the Székelyföld until the 1790s, than largely disappeared there as well; what re-mained were a few fertile fragments (cabbage, flax, and potato patches) that everyone wanted a share of, along with some distant plots that were difficult to cultivate. Often such remnants were not shared out but used as the village's source of credit. Thus the land might be lent to the local magistrate or shepherd, provide income from which to pay military levies, or serve as a source of fodder for the animals of government officials on tour, or, in winter, for the {2-629.} village's bull. In some places, leftover communal land was put out on lease. Around 1820, only three communities still practised the traditional form of communal distribution, in which most of the ploughland and hayfields were allocated by arrow shot: the Székely village of Felvinc, and two once-free Saxon villages that had sunk into villeinage, Dedrád and Petele.

The communal ownership of fields (as distinct from commonly held pastures and woods) became a rare and token exception, but there was little change in the methods of cultivation. Even the two-crop system was far from generalized. Although Fridvaldszky, whose expertise encompassed agriculture, was familiar around 1770–71 with the technique of crop rotation, he continued to advocate the three-crop system on the grounds that it had a greater chance of being adopted. Yet even that expectation was proved optimistic. In 1820, in the three northern districts of the Partium, some 59 percent of the villages' ploughland was given over to the two-crop system, and only 15 percent to the three-crop system. A different technique was applied to 22.65 percent of the land: in rotation, a small portion (generally one sixth to one seventh) was used continuously for corn or other spring sowing, and the rest for two crops. Some mountain settlements did not follow any orderly system of cultivation. It was, once again, on the Wesselényi estate at Zsibó that the radically new system of crop rotation was first introduced, in 1826, initially in a transitional form between the three-crop system and modern rotation.

Well before that, new types of crop had appeared in Transylvania. The most important of these, potato, was cultivated as early as the 1760s, on Gábor Bethlen's estates. The potato was popularized by the eminent chief physician of Marosvásárhely, István Mátyus, in a book published in 1767, Diaetetica. Towards the end of that year, Maria Theresa instructed that Transylvanians — especially those who lived in hilly and less fertile districts — be encouraged to plant potatoes. Public officials would consume the tuber as {2-630.} an act loyalty: in late 1768, potato pancakes were served for lunch at the home of the Gubernium's chairman, General O'Donel. It proved harder to persuade common folk of the potato's merits. Although the Gubernium did not tarry in following up the queen's instructions, the results were slow in coming. It seems that in 1768–69, potatoes were cultivated only in the Fogaras and Kővár districts. In 1770, the potato crop was barely sufficient to provide for the next year's planting, and there was much resistance to the new product, even in Kolozsvár, where horticulture was well-developed.

The Societas Agriculturae, which had been established at the initiative of the government and was headed by high officials, devoted much attention to the new plant. In late 1769, the society's president personally exhibited several types of potato bread (made with varying mixtures of potato flour and wheat flour), but his initiative had mixed success. On the other hand, consumers judged potato alcohol to be drinkable. Fridvaldszky, who collaborated actively in all significant activities of the agricultural society, submitted in early 1771 a report on the potential uses of the potato; he presented the society with two types of bread, one made from potato flour, the other from a mixture of flours, and he also judged potatoes to be a good ingredient in pigswill. This outstanding natural scientist even worked out, in 1772, a technique for turning potatoes into beer. It still took some time before potatoes became an item of mass consumption. By 1774, the potato had come into general use in Háromszék, as a garnish that was either baked or served with butter, and also as pigswill. Its cultivation was also widespread in Küküllő County and Segesvárszék; there was scattered potato production in some additional districts, while in others, the potato continued to be regarded with suspicion. The pattern became even less positive in 1782. Potato production declined in Háromszék and Segesvárszék, and expanded only in Brassó and the Barcaság, Medgyesszék, and the Kővár district; its dissemination elsewhere {2-631.} was hindered by the false belief that the consumption of potatoes induced syphilis. By the beginning of the 19th century, potato cultivation was well-established in certain districts; in Csíkszék, many farmers would harvest as much as 175–350 cubic metres (50–100 köböl) of potatoes as well as 8–12 bushels of grain. Yet at the time of the 1813–18 famine, forceful measures had to be taken in many parts of Transylvania to persuade peasants to plant potatoes.

Although flax was not new to Transylvania, the authorities took measures early in this period to promote its cultivation. In 1772, flax was grown only in a few scattered locations, and then mainly for its oil-rich seed. That year, the Commissio Commercialis tried to stimulate production by organizing flax and hemp markets in some localities, but to little effect.

Silk production involves the breeding of silkworms and the cultivation of mulberry trees, and it spans three sectors, animal husbandry, farming, and industry; given the end product, it will be discussed in the context of the latter sector. The development of horticulture deserves a final note. In the early 19th century, the greenhouse horticulture on the Haller domain at Fehéregyház served as a model as well as a training ground for garden farmers. By 1825, a wide range of vegetables — cabbage, onion, carrot, parsley, radish, kohlrabi, and beetroot — were grown in greenhouses at Hídvég.

Turning to the scale and types of farming operations, large agricultural estates present a more differentiated picture than in the preceding period. These estates, and allodia in general, began to expand at a more rapid rate, ultimately at the expense of the villeins' land. Beginning in the late 1740s, the complaint became common among free Romanians in the Királyföld that free Saxons were taking over their cleared lands. In this period, the same pattern emerged in the relations between landowners and villeins. Then, in 1791, a law was enacted (Statute XXVI) allowing landowners to seize from villeins land that the latter had cleared without authorization; and even if the villeins had obtained permission, they {2-632.} would be compensated only if they had not used the cleared land for a period seven years, the principle being that their labour had been adequately recompensed over that period. The landowner could nibble away at his villeins' land on the occasion of some reallocation, obtaining it in exchange for allodial land of poorer quality. Moreover, in the absence of a comprehensive regulation of socage in Transylvania, the division of land between landowner and villein was not prescribed, and the landowner was thus essentially free to retrieve some of his villeins' land. To be sure, these practices did not become very common, let alone generalized. After the migration induced by the 1813–18 famine, most landowners would settle villeins on newly vacant land. Nevertheless, the generally poor environmental conditions and the backwardness of agricultural techniques conspired to increase the demand for land.

Some noble landowners were also tempted to encroach on the village's pasture, during the reallocation of land or at other times; they could use the pasture for their own livestock, or put it out on lease. More commonly, landowners would reserve woodlots for their own use. Law XXX, enacted in 1791, confirmed the landowners' exclusive right to the woods. This did not mean, in practice, that the peasants lost all access to the woods. However, in some villages that had traditionally enjoyed free use of the woods, the peasants were now required to obtain written or oral permission from the landowner or his agent before procuring construction lumber in the woods, and then, at times, only under the supervision of the forest supervisor. In some villein villages, access to the woods was restricted to specified days, and, in a few cases, the firewood had to be paid for in one or a combination of cash and day labour. A further consequence was that villeins would have to pay cash if they wanted to continue feeding their pigs on acorns in the woods.

The expansion of manorial farms and payment for the use of traditionally communal lands were the dominant tendencies in the development large-scale agriculture. Another tendency, noted earlier, {2-633.} was of modernization: new breeds and improved methods of keeping livestock, better quality seed grain, new methods of horticulture, and, here and there, the introduction of crop rotation.

With regard to manpower, the large estates continued to rely largely on socage services. In the period 1798–1822, there was no wage labour, strictly defined, on the Bonchida domain, which be-longed to one of Transylvania's great landowners, Governor György Bánffy. Theoretically, the amount of socage service was governed by the 'Certain Points' decree, but these regulations were generally disregarded. Ways were found to raise the customary levels of service, and there was unconscionable variety in the number and types of services. For instance, there were, in a single village, ninety-one villeins attached to nineteen landowners, and these villeins performed their services according to seven different prescriptions; two villeins would not necessarily provide the same payment in kind to be relieved of their service obligations, which others might redeem by paying a tax. In this case, eleven of the landowners were aristocrats, and two others were wealthy, county nobles. The diversity was only accentuated in villages where the landowners were of the lesser nobility, and where the prescribed services varied almost from villein to villein. The socage services delivered by the typical Transylvanian villein far surpassed those of a villein in Hungary with a whole plot of land, who had to plough a socage area three to four times greater than did the former; socage services were not utilized in a efficient manner in Transylvania. Around 1790, the service obligation of villeins on the Tholdalagi domain at Koronka amounted to 2–3 days per week, but, in practice, the landowner only demanded around 110 days of labour a year. Even that was distributed unevenly. For one third of the year, the villeins would not be called upon; at other times, they would be required to do continuous work, and neglect their own fields, for as long as a month. Nor did the allocation of socage work facilitate the modernization of the agricultural estate. Barely a quarter of the {2-634.} socage service was devoted to ploughing and sowing, around the same proportion for tending the vineyards, and only 7.29 percent for harvesting. The rest of the time was allocated to diverse activities, including forest work, cartage, and handicrafts.

It might have been expected that thanks to the modernization of production and to the economic boom of the Napoleonic era, Transylvania's large estates would have become more active participants in the market for agricultural commodities. In fact, the boom had little effect on them. Between 1798 and 1806, barely 4.34–8.71 percent of the grain produced on the Bánffy domain at Bonchida reached the market. The proportion sold exceeded 10 percent only in 1816, when the famine and rising prices led the domain to dispose of almost all of its surplus production; when the famine passed, the proportion that was marketed fell back to earlier levels. Most of the grain grown on the domain was consumed by the domestic staff and the livestock. The domain's cash income from grain amounted to less than a thousand forints a year between 1798 and 1806, then rose, due to inflationary pressures, to 1500–3505 forints before falling back again; the previously noted circumstances inflated the income to 10,272 forints 51 kreuzers in 1816, after which it fell to around 2300–2400 forints. Sales of hay brought in an additional income of some 100–200 forints a year over the period 1798–1820, except for the year 1809, when the amount rose to 5358 forints, probably because the entire surplus production was sold to the insurgent army. The sale of livestock generated, on average, some 300–800 forints a year between 1798 and 1820; in two of those years, the income reached 1700–1800 forints, and in the economic upswing of 1807, sales brought in 5325 forints. The cash income from animal products (meat, leather, wool) was inconsequential. On the other hand, the sale of alcoholic drinks — the larger part of which probably went to the domain's pubs — brought in much higher amounts; the cash income from this source reached an annual 1000–2000 forints in three of the years {2-635.} between 1804 and 1820, 3000–4000 in four years, 4000–5000 forints in two years, 5000–6000 forints in one year, and over 6000 forints in two other years. On average, the money raised from alcohol sales was roughly equivalent to that accruing from the marketing of grain, hay, and livestock. In sum, the domain's participation in the market was very limited, and the Napoleonic boom gave only occasional stimulus. In comparison, the performance of the Zsibó domain is all the more remarkable. Its owner made money from selling horses and from stud fees, organized the large-scale production of wool, and exported bottled wine to far-off countries.

With regard to the villeins' own farms, data on their size is available only for the northern Partium. There, the average villein farm encompassed a shade under 3 hectares (5 cadastral acres) of ploughland and close to one hectare (1.5 cadastral acres) of meadow. As noted, three fifths of the ploughland was cultivated on the two-crop basis, while the remainder was partly under continuous cultivation, partly given over to the two-crop system. The villeins' draught animals consisted generally of one or two oxen or horses. These villages must have had a hard time assembling the requisite draught animals, for ploughing in Transylvania was normally done with four oxen, in three phases (turning, sowing, and ploughing under), and the landowners' fields needed to be tilled by the villeins in the same period. Indeed, the shortage of draught animals was one the principal impediments to any expansion of the villeins' ploughland. In some mountain areas, manual hoeing took the place of ploughing. The villeins' farms did not produce much for the market: depending on local conditions, they may have sold some grain, livestock, wine, or, closer to the towns, fruit and vegetables. As noted, villeins also had to contend with the expansion of the landowners' own farms.

The agricultural activity of free peasants and townsfolk followed a traditional pattern. Viniculture remained strong in the Királyföld. In the 1770s and 1780s, the diarist Michael von {2-636.} Heydendorf earned an annual 1000–1800 forints from the sale of his wine, more than the total cash income a middle-ranking landowner-aristocrat who, in Transylvania, would be regarded as very well off. The period's most successful beekeepers were also townsfolk, Brassó's Lang brothers, who had studied apiculture in Lausitz and Vienna. They kept some 1000–2500 beehives, acquiring most of these each fall from the neighbouring Székely and Saxon széks; after a year, they destroyed the bees and replenished their stock. In a typical year, their net income from beekeeping amounted to 1084 forints 40 kreuzers.