Page 142 - 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. 142
maize to the people!
an end to the coexistence between buckwheat and beekeeping too quickly.
However, they warned that because of the sensitivity of buckwheat to early
frost, risks had to be neutralized or reduced, which could be done by grad-
ually increasing the percentage of maize over that of buckwheat. Initially,
the peasants could allocate a quarter of their buckwheat fields to maize. In
this manner, they would familiarize themselves with the production poten-
tials and usefulness of maize first-hand. However, the process should in-
volve the introduction of those varieties of maize that were the most suita-
ble for the local pedological and climate conditions. Its purpose had to be
taken into account as well: maize as a stubble crop called for varieties that
matured rapidly – the so-called činkvantin (from cinquantin; KRN 1855)
and pignoletto (KRN 1880, Porenta). Elsewhere, maize was more suitable
as the main crop, as it boasted a higher yield (KRN 1848). The general use-
fulness of maize was emphasized as well, as maize stalks were highly con-
venient as livestock feed. Even stripped maize cobs were useful. The suita-
ble pedological conditions for the cultivation of maize and its resistance to
frost were underlined as well (KRN 1850). Should the soil be too heavy, fer-
tilization could ensure suitable conditions.
Peasants were being persuaded that with the appropriate sowing dis-
tance to ensure sunlight and heat, they could take advantage of maize fields
by also planting beans and pumpkins. As maize needed to be hoed and
dressed, the workload increased. Therefore, peasants were concerned that
they would be unable to handle the additional work and would need to hire
workers, which would be a too great burden for the scope and profitabili-
ty of their economy. Twenty workers were required to dress a single hectare
of maize in a single day. Calculations indicated that between twenty and
twenty-five workers were needed to hoe the same amount of maize in a day.
These facts caused considerable concern. The experts recognized that the
peasants’ doubts were well founded, but believed that the long-term pro-
ductivity of maize in combination with additional crops and weeded fields
more than made up for the increased physical effort. Later, in the 1880s,
one of the arguments in favour of maize that was often mentioned was the
possibility of using machinery for these purposes (KRN 1881), as the one-
time expense to purchase the required agricultural machinery was, in the
long term, offset by the increased productivity. For this reason, however,
it was necessary to plant maize with the correct spacing between the rows
and within rows. The peasants also kept underlining the reduced harvest of
wheat, should maize expand as the main crop rather than merely as a stub-
140
an end to the coexistence between buckwheat and beekeeping too quickly.
However, they warned that because of the sensitivity of buckwheat to early
frost, risks had to be neutralized or reduced, which could be done by grad-
ually increasing the percentage of maize over that of buckwheat. Initially,
the peasants could allocate a quarter of their buckwheat fields to maize. In
this manner, they would familiarize themselves with the production poten-
tials and usefulness of maize first-hand. However, the process should in-
volve the introduction of those varieties of maize that were the most suita-
ble for the local pedological and climate conditions. Its purpose had to be
taken into account as well: maize as a stubble crop called for varieties that
matured rapidly – the so-called činkvantin (from cinquantin; KRN 1855)
and pignoletto (KRN 1880, Porenta). Elsewhere, maize was more suitable
as the main crop, as it boasted a higher yield (KRN 1848). The general use-
fulness of maize was emphasized as well, as maize stalks were highly con-
venient as livestock feed. Even stripped maize cobs were useful. The suita-
ble pedological conditions for the cultivation of maize and its resistance to
frost were underlined as well (KRN 1850). Should the soil be too heavy, fer-
tilization could ensure suitable conditions.
Peasants were being persuaded that with the appropriate sowing dis-
tance to ensure sunlight and heat, they could take advantage of maize fields
by also planting beans and pumpkins. As maize needed to be hoed and
dressed, the workload increased. Therefore, peasants were concerned that
they would be unable to handle the additional work and would need to hire
workers, which would be a too great burden for the scope and profitabili-
ty of their economy. Twenty workers were required to dress a single hectare
of maize in a single day. Calculations indicated that between twenty and
twenty-five workers were needed to hoe the same amount of maize in a day.
These facts caused considerable concern. The experts recognized that the
peasants’ doubts were well founded, but believed that the long-term pro-
ductivity of maize in combination with additional crops and weeded fields
more than made up for the increased physical effort. Later, in the 1880s,
one of the arguments in favour of maize that was often mentioned was the
possibility of using machinery for these purposes (KRN 1881), as the one-
time expense to purchase the required agricultural machinery was, in the
long term, offset by the increased productivity. For this reason, however,
it was necessary to plant maize with the correct spacing between the rows
and within rows. The peasants also kept underlining the reduced harvest of
wheat, should maize expand as the main crop rather than merely as a stub-
140
