Page 141 - Mocarelli, Luca, and Aleksander Panjek. Eds. 2020. Maize to the People! Cultivation, Consumption and Trade in the North-Eastern Mediterranean (Sixteenth-Nineteenth Century). Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 141
buckwheat or maize? ultimately, potatoes!
wheat on one side, while they are still harvesting wheat or flax on
the other side. It therefore happens that by the evening buckwheat
has already been sown where wheat was still growing in the morn-
ing. A week later, such a field is already green again. In September,
go visit the places and lands where buckwheat is not sown after
other sorts of cereals, and you will see that the empty fields appear
burnt. You will be eager to once again rest your eyes on fields cov-
ered in buckwheat and adorned with reddish-white flowers.
As a sort of a solemn promise, the author concludes the text by declar-
ing: “In Carniola, we will therefore not give up buckwheat: it is ours and it
will remain ours. Thank God for it!” (KRN 1846, Okra). Throughout the
century, buckwheat persisted in the entire Slovenian territory, in particu-
lar as a stubble crop. In the last decades of the nineteenth century, a new,
modernized frost-resistant variety of buckwheat was introduced. Its rele-
vance was thus maintained for as long as the first decades of the twentieth
century. Not including Istria, where it was not sown, the average percent-
age of buckwheat on arable land in 1875 amounted to approximately 16%,
and Styria was the province with an above-average share. By 1913, however,
the percentage of buckwheat as a stubble crop had been reduced in all the
provinces – not so much in Styria than in the Goriška region, where it de-
clined by three quarters. Even in Carniola, where buckwheat was defended
by passionate advocates, its share was reduced by a third. The reduction in
the percentage of buckwheat was mostly caused by the introduction of var-
ious fodder plants (Gospodarska 1970, 266).
The opposite standpoints – that buckwheat needed to be partially re-
placed with maize – were published in 1854. In that year, early frost consid-
erably diminished the buckwheat harvest, as this crop was extremely sensi-
tive to colder temperatures. Experts advised that larger quantities of maize
be sown to avoid such a problem in the future. The process was not simple,
however, because the opposing side claimed that buckwheat was irreplace-
able in the concept of peasant economy for two reasons. One of its advan-
tages was the fact that it was a stubble crop, which contributed to the econ-
omization of agricultural land. Another argument attested to the concept
of an integrated peasant economy, as the buckwheat advocates kept un-
derlining that this crop was indispensable for the widespread beekeeping.
As bee pastures, buckwheat fields ensured the production of honey, which
supplemented the peasants’ income. The experts understood that changes
could not be introduced instantaneously and that it was not sensible to put
139
wheat on one side, while they are still harvesting wheat or flax on
the other side. It therefore happens that by the evening buckwheat
has already been sown where wheat was still growing in the morn-
ing. A week later, such a field is already green again. In September,
go visit the places and lands where buckwheat is not sown after
other sorts of cereals, and you will see that the empty fields appear
burnt. You will be eager to once again rest your eyes on fields cov-
ered in buckwheat and adorned with reddish-white flowers.
As a sort of a solemn promise, the author concludes the text by declar-
ing: “In Carniola, we will therefore not give up buckwheat: it is ours and it
will remain ours. Thank God for it!” (KRN 1846, Okra). Throughout the
century, buckwheat persisted in the entire Slovenian territory, in particu-
lar as a stubble crop. In the last decades of the nineteenth century, a new,
modernized frost-resistant variety of buckwheat was introduced. Its rele-
vance was thus maintained for as long as the first decades of the twentieth
century. Not including Istria, where it was not sown, the average percent-
age of buckwheat on arable land in 1875 amounted to approximately 16%,
and Styria was the province with an above-average share. By 1913, however,
the percentage of buckwheat as a stubble crop had been reduced in all the
provinces – not so much in Styria than in the Goriška region, where it de-
clined by three quarters. Even in Carniola, where buckwheat was defended
by passionate advocates, its share was reduced by a third. The reduction in
the percentage of buckwheat was mostly caused by the introduction of var-
ious fodder plants (Gospodarska 1970, 266).
The opposite standpoints – that buckwheat needed to be partially re-
placed with maize – were published in 1854. In that year, early frost consid-
erably diminished the buckwheat harvest, as this crop was extremely sensi-
tive to colder temperatures. Experts advised that larger quantities of maize
be sown to avoid such a problem in the future. The process was not simple,
however, because the opposing side claimed that buckwheat was irreplace-
able in the concept of peasant economy for two reasons. One of its advan-
tages was the fact that it was a stubble crop, which contributed to the econ-
omization of agricultural land. Another argument attested to the concept
of an integrated peasant economy, as the buckwheat advocates kept un-
derlining that this crop was indispensable for the widespread beekeeping.
As bee pastures, buckwheat fields ensured the production of honey, which
supplemented the peasants’ income. The experts understood that changes
could not be introduced instantaneously and that it was not sensible to put
139
