Page 162 - 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. 162
maize to the people!
adapted crops, they supplemented each other in view of the pedological
and weather conditions. They allowed the peasants, and the society in the
broadest sense, to diversify and rationally exploit their economic potentials
and avoid nutritional risks. In light of the increasing population and mod-
est living standard, the latter was extremely important.
Bibliography
Published sources
KRN: Kmetijske in rokodelske novice
1846, 4 (41): Okra, ‘Hvala ajde.’ 14th October 1846.
1848, 6 (10): ‘Turšica.’ 8th March 1848.
1850, 8 (12): ‘Poskušnje s turšico, ki se mala zgodnja turšica ali činkvantin
imenuje.’ 20th March 1850.
1854, 12 (76): Terpinc, ‘Ali ajda - ali turšica?’ 23th September 1854.
1855, 13 (52): ‘Laška koruza ali činkvantinka.’ 30th June 1855.
1880, 38 (13): Porenta, L. ‘Pignoleto, zgodnja sorta koruze (sirka).’ 31th
March 1880.
1881, 39 (34): ‘Ali prav sadijo koruzo po Kranjskem?’ 24th August 1881.
Literature
Bićanić, R. 1973. Economic Policy in Socialist Yugoslavia. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Britovšek, M. 1964. Razkroj fevdalne agrarne strukture na Kranjskem. Ljubljana:
Slovenska Matica.
Erjavec, F. 1928. Kmetiško vprašanje v Sloveniji. Ljubljana: Jugoslovanska kmet-
ska zveza.
Garič Petrovič, G. 2017. Zemljoradnja u Srbiji (1878–1912). Beograd: Istorijski
institut.
Gospodarska in družbena zgodovina Slovencev, 1970. Zgodovina agrarnih
panog, I, Agrarno gospodarstvo. Ljubljana: DZS.
Hrobat Virgolet, K. 2018. Kmečka “gospodarska prizadevnost” v slovenski et-
nologiji (19.–20. stoletje). In Preživetje in podjetnost, Integrirana kmečka
ekonomija na Slovenskem od srednjega veka do danes, edited by A. Panjek
and Ž. Lazarević, 75–90. Koper: Založba Univerze na Primorskem.
Kmetijstvo Dravske banovine, 1933. Ljubljana.
160
adapted crops, they supplemented each other in view of the pedological
and weather conditions. They allowed the peasants, and the society in the
broadest sense, to diversify and rationally exploit their economic potentials
and avoid nutritional risks. In light of the increasing population and mod-
est living standard, the latter was extremely important.
Bibliography
Published sources
KRN: Kmetijske in rokodelske novice
1846, 4 (41): Okra, ‘Hvala ajde.’ 14th October 1846.
1848, 6 (10): ‘Turšica.’ 8th March 1848.
1850, 8 (12): ‘Poskušnje s turšico, ki se mala zgodnja turšica ali činkvantin
imenuje.’ 20th March 1850.
1854, 12 (76): Terpinc, ‘Ali ajda - ali turšica?’ 23th September 1854.
1855, 13 (52): ‘Laška koruza ali činkvantinka.’ 30th June 1855.
1880, 38 (13): Porenta, L. ‘Pignoleto, zgodnja sorta koruze (sirka).’ 31th
March 1880.
1881, 39 (34): ‘Ali prav sadijo koruzo po Kranjskem?’ 24th August 1881.
Literature
Bićanić, R. 1973. Economic Policy in Socialist Yugoslavia. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Britovšek, M. 1964. Razkroj fevdalne agrarne strukture na Kranjskem. Ljubljana:
Slovenska Matica.
Erjavec, F. 1928. Kmetiško vprašanje v Sloveniji. Ljubljana: Jugoslovanska kmet-
ska zveza.
Garič Petrovič, G. 2017. Zemljoradnja u Srbiji (1878–1912). Beograd: Istorijski
institut.
Gospodarska in družbena zgodovina Slovencev, 1970. Zgodovina agrarnih
panog, I, Agrarno gospodarstvo. Ljubljana: DZS.
Hrobat Virgolet, K. 2018. Kmečka “gospodarska prizadevnost” v slovenski et-
nologiji (19.–20. stoletje). In Preživetje in podjetnost, Integrirana kmečka
ekonomija na Slovenskem od srednjega veka do danes, edited by A. Panjek
and Ž. Lazarević, 75–90. Koper: Založba Univerze na Primorskem.
Kmetijstvo Dravske banovine, 1933. Ljubljana.
160
