Page 362 - Panjek, Aleksander, Jesper Larsson and Luca Mocarelli, eds. 2017. Integrated Peasant Economy in a Comparative Perspective: Alps, Scandinavia and Beyond. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 362
integr ated peasant economy in a compar ative perspective
enough – they had to buy additional bread flour. 2/3 of the yield was used by
the family; the rest was sold. Products sold by the farm were mostly wine,
fruits and eggs. The farmers also raised a pig that they had bought for this
purpose, as well as chickens, but food scraps and their own corn yield were
insufficient to feed the livestock, forcing the family to buy additional feed.
Recurring costs primarily included the costs of clothing and footwear,
which amounted to as much as 25% of all expenditure. Add to this all other
food-related expenditure, which amounted to 50% of all quantified expend-
iture, and we find that the family subsistence costs represented as much as
75% of all the expenditure of a small Bela krajina farmer. Understandably,
some money also had to go towards the production or purchase of Bor-
deaux mixture, a fungicide needed in the vineyards. Very little was thus left
for the miscellaneous needs of the family. Interestingly, a significant item
of the latter category are tobacco costs, which were higher than the costs of
salt, lighting and soap put together. Another item of interest is the subscrip-
tion to Domoljub (The Patriot), a farmers’ magazine.
A comparison of income and expenditure of the farm shows a negative
balance, as costs significantly exceed the income. Specifically, costs were
higher than income by 3/4. This of course raises the question of how the
deficit was covered. There were only two ways to do this – either borrow or
find other sources of income. The family in question used both ways. Day’s
labour for other farmers and handicraft work covered most of the deficit,
while the rest of the money was provided by the farmer’s brother, which
can be understood as a kind of borrowing. The case illustrates than an es-
tablishment of this size was not even able to produce enough food for the
family, much less to use the income from agriculture production to expand.
The very existence of a family was ensured by increasing employment out-
side of agriculture.
The second case we consider is from Bela krajina as well (Pirc 1938, 88–
9); however, the structure of the farm in this case is different. In total, the
farm had 9 ha of land, 3 ha of which were fields, while the rest were other
types of land, of which vineyards were the most prominent. The farm pro-
vided for seven people, with the children already grown up and able to help
out. The main product of the farm was wine, while other agricultural activ-
ities served primarily to satisfy the nutritional needs of the family. The fam-
ily raised livestock as well, having a couple of cows and pigs. The total val-
ue of the farm’s production was 23,708 dinars. Of this, 12,421 dinars’ worth
of goods were sold (wine, spirits, potatoes, beans, two pigs, one steer). This
360
enough – they had to buy additional bread flour. 2/3 of the yield was used by
the family; the rest was sold. Products sold by the farm were mostly wine,
fruits and eggs. The farmers also raised a pig that they had bought for this
purpose, as well as chickens, but food scraps and their own corn yield were
insufficient to feed the livestock, forcing the family to buy additional feed.
Recurring costs primarily included the costs of clothing and footwear,
which amounted to as much as 25% of all expenditure. Add to this all other
food-related expenditure, which amounted to 50% of all quantified expend-
iture, and we find that the family subsistence costs represented as much as
75% of all the expenditure of a small Bela krajina farmer. Understandably,
some money also had to go towards the production or purchase of Bor-
deaux mixture, a fungicide needed in the vineyards. Very little was thus left
for the miscellaneous needs of the family. Interestingly, a significant item
of the latter category are tobacco costs, which were higher than the costs of
salt, lighting and soap put together. Another item of interest is the subscrip-
tion to Domoljub (The Patriot), a farmers’ magazine.
A comparison of income and expenditure of the farm shows a negative
balance, as costs significantly exceed the income. Specifically, costs were
higher than income by 3/4. This of course raises the question of how the
deficit was covered. There were only two ways to do this – either borrow or
find other sources of income. The family in question used both ways. Day’s
labour for other farmers and handicraft work covered most of the deficit,
while the rest of the money was provided by the farmer’s brother, which
can be understood as a kind of borrowing. The case illustrates than an es-
tablishment of this size was not even able to produce enough food for the
family, much less to use the income from agriculture production to expand.
The very existence of a family was ensured by increasing employment out-
side of agriculture.
The second case we consider is from Bela krajina as well (Pirc 1938, 88–
9); however, the structure of the farm in this case is different. In total, the
farm had 9 ha of land, 3 ha of which were fields, while the rest were other
types of land, of which vineyards were the most prominent. The farm pro-
vided for seven people, with the children already grown up and able to help
out. The main product of the farm was wine, while other agricultural activ-
ities served primarily to satisfy the nutritional needs of the family. The fam-
ily raised livestock as well, having a couple of cows and pigs. The total val-
ue of the farm’s production was 23,708 dinars. Of this, 12,421 dinars’ worth
of goods were sold (wine, spirits, potatoes, beans, two pigs, one steer). This
360
