"Of Flies Canals, Dirt, Money and Wheat": Background & Exploration.
The wheat boom occurred at the far fringes of our window
into local agricultural history. So far, we have been able to find
almost no Columbia statistics on grain production prior to the first
half of the nineteenth century. The above map of Columbia County is
derived from the New York State Census of 1845, the first in which we
have been able to find detailed information regarding the distribution
of grain production in the County. However, by the time of that census,
it is likely that wheat had largely fallen from favor. So, how do we
know there even was a 'wheat boom'? Circumstantial evidence as a
detective might say.
First, we do have a very few specific reports such as
Alexander Coventry's Diary, a copy of which is available at the Columbia County Historical Society
(together with many other interesting documents). Dating from the
1780s, his diary makes repeated reference to wheat growing around
Claverack, although one cannot really be more precise than to say 'wheat
was important'.
The 1680 reference to wheat production in the County comes from the Journal of Jasper Danckaerts, a missionary who journied up the Hudson in 1680. One of his stops was at Kinderhook, where he recorded,
"On returning to the boat, we saw that the
woman-trader had sent a quantity of bluish wheat on board, which the
skipper would not receive, or rather mix with the other wheat; but when
she came she had it done, in which her dishonesty appeared, for when the
skipper arrived at New York he could not deliver the wheat which was
under hers".
(Interestingly, this issue of the quality of wheat being
exported from the upper Hudson Valley was still important nearly 140
years later, when an article in The Plough Boy of 1819 berated regional farmers for their poor cleaning of the wheat they were sending to NYC.)
Preparing the ground. 19th century wood engraving by New Yorker Alexander Anderson.
(Alexander Anderson, whose works have appeared in earlier nuggets, was
active from about 1795 to 1865. He was based in New York City, and we
don't know exactly when and where he created his farm images; they are available on-line at the New York Public Library)
Most of the rest of our pre-1800 references to wheat
production are more geographically general, such as the reports of
governors and officials on production in the Hudson Valley. Adriaen van
der Donck who, in his 1655 A Description of New Netherland (for a new and annotated edition see here and for more on Dutch history in the Hudson Valley, visit the New Netherlands Institute) remarked on the great fertility and grain-growing potential of the Hudson Valley, " New
Netherland is as fertile and fit for growing all kinds of grain as any
part of the world thus far known to or possessed by Netherlanders".
Likewise, early English colonial records (see for example, the materials in A Documentary History of New York) abound with references to wheat exports and to the use of wheat as, essentially, a currency. As one governor put it in 1705, " as
the case now stands, they [New York farmers] apply their land to Corn
[i.e., grain] of all sorts, but chiefly wheat, because they have a
certain market for that in the Islands [that is, the West Indies].”
There are also export statistics from NYC, but there is relatively
little information that lets us specify what was happening locally.
Sowing seeds and a training session for early airborne
crop dusting (just testing to see if anybody actually reads these
captions!)
Our estimate of a late eighteenth century annual wheat
production in the County of at least 190,000 bushels is derived largely
from the interesting work of Martin Breugel, especially his Farm, Shop, Landing.
He knows of no direct data from the County, but used wills and similar
documents to estimate an average per capita consumption of wheat, and we
used this, together with population data from the County, to estimate a
minimum total production. We call it a "minimum" because such estimates
would not include grain sold off farm, a value which we currently
cannot estimate but may well have been substantial. If any of you know
of grain production/processing/sale records from the mid-Hudson Valley
for the 18th century or earlier, please let us know.
Harvesting, notice that both men and women are working here.
Information on yield (i.e., production amount/area sown) is
likewise hard to come by for the early period. The figure at the top of
the page is a summary of the data we have found so far. Not all of
these values are from Columbia County. The graph below, while more
cluttered, is an updated and annotated version of the yield graph,
detailing where the data are from.
Wheat yield in and around Columbia County (click on image for larger version).
There are at least three different factors directly
affecting these yields: 1) 'agricultural technology' (including tools
and varieties available); 2) soil quality; and 3) disease and pests.
These factors interact. For example, a poor wheat variety might grow
weakly and thus be more susceptible to certain pests or diseases.
Given these considerations, it is difficult to know how the
11 bu/acre early Dutch report should be explained. Given that it is but
a single report, it may have been a spatially or temporally local fluke
or perhaps it is accountable for based on varieties or modes of
growing.
What does seem clear is that yields around 20 bu/acre were
relatively common in the mid-Hudson Valley in the 18th century, that
yields then decreased until about the middle of the 19th century, and
that numerous contemporary observers attributed the decline to soil
exhaustion. As early as 1640, Adrean van der Donck was commenting on the
lack of fertilization of grain fields. Such comments continued
throughout the 18th century, and were increasingly joined by
descriptions of the resulting soil decline. In 1774, for example, the
governor of New York commented, " The soil [of the mid & lower
Hudson Valley] in general is much thinner and lighter… having been
longer under Culture and subject to bad Husbandry, is much more
exhausted". The 1813 Gazetteer of the State of New York by Horation Spafford (a some time farmer of Columbia County) has many references to improverished soils in the County.
Bringing in the harvest.
While various commentators described this scenario and
urged farmers to better manage their soil nutrients, it is perhaps most
appropriate to quote Jesse Buel.
Buel (1778 - 1839) was farmer, agronomist, politician and reformer who
settled in Albany. He was instrumental in promoting agricultural
improvement in New York State, especially through The Cultivator,
an Albany-based agricultural newspaper that began publication in 1834
and gained widespread popularity. (Intriguingly, Buel apparently
established an experimental farm in the Albany Pine Bush - it would be
interesting to re-locate the land.) Commenting on trends in regional
agriclture, In 1836, Jesse Buel summarized the state of wheat growing as
follows (I quote him in length because of the contemporary respect he
received and because of his panoramic vision):
" Although it is difficult to compare the average crops
of different countries with any degree of accuracy, I will nevertheless
endeavor to do it from the imperfect data to which I have had access …
Flanders is a flat, wet, and generally sandy country, illy
adapted to the wheat crop. Yet the average over 25 bushels per acre.
Lowe gives the average product of different districts, in this grain,
according to Radcliff, varies from 20 1/2 to 32 bushels to the acre;
mean average production in Scotland, of wheat 24 … bushels the acre.
Loudon states the average product in Britain at 24, 29, and 32 bushels;
mean average 26 bushels the acre. In 1790, Washington, in a letter to
Arthur Young, computed the average crop in Pennsylvania, then one of our
best wheat growing States, as follows:—Wheat 15 bushels... Strickland,
in a report made to the British Board of Agriculture, forty years ago,
gave the average wheat crop of our State at 12 bushels the acre, and of
Dutchess, then, as now, our best cultivated county, at 16 bushels. An
intelligent correspondent… expresses his doubts whether the average
produce in Pennsylvania, with the exception of the potato crop, is as
great as it was half a century ago. I am inclined to
believe that in our State there has been a manifest improvement in that
period; for, although some districts have retrograded, others have
advanced with a good deal of celerity.— Well managed farms may be
selected in the old river counties, where improvement has made the
greatest advances, upon which the average crops have more than doubled
during the last few years; where wheat has yielded an average crop of 25
to 30 bushels an acre… The maximum produce of our grain crops may be
stated, wheat 40 bushels…Inthis estimate I leave out of view the fertile
west, where nature has been profusely bountiful of her gifts, and where
man seems to think the soil inexhaustible, and confine my remarks to
the valley of the Hudson. These facts suffice to show, that while the
condition of our husbandry is bad, it is susceptible of great
improvement. What has been done in one district, or on one farm, may be
done on others. And if we despair of the present generation to make the
desired improvements, let us take care at least to qualify our sons to
become better managers than their fathers"
Buel and other 'improvers' were not only concerned with the
profitability of farms; they lived at a time when perhaps 80% of the
national (and Columbia County)
labor force were farmers and so directly obtained their welfare from
the land. The "sustainability" of farming meant the sustainability of
life for the independent farm family and hence for the majority of the
population.
Gleaning? Although this image is untitled in the
collection, it appears to show people gleaning grain from an already
harvested field. Gleaning was apparently was one way that those without
their own fields could collect at least some food stuff.
Finally, one can, in the literature of the time, find ample
bemoaning of the Hessian Fly and other wheat plagues, and, at least in
an immediate sense, these caused substantial trauma to the farmers. And
yet, observers did not immediately attribute all of wheat's decline to
one pest or another, but rather quickly included the influence of poor
soils. As one writer pointed out, some of the most dramatic declines in
production during this period occured in Virginia, where many of the
Northeastern wheat pests and plagues were scarce but where there was
major soil depletion.
Preparing the grain for the mill. The men at center are
threshing (removing the seeds from the stalks), while the two smaller
figures at right appear to be filling sacks beside a mechanical winnower
(winnowing separates the grain seed itself from the thin husk that
clothes it) .
Asa Fitch, the New York State entomologist referred to in
the article, put "rich soils" at the head of his 1846 (Trans. of the New
York State Agricultural Society, v. 6, pp. 357-358) list of remedies
and ties the Fly's ravages directly to soil exhaustion, while also
outlining a holistic approach to pest management that rings true today,
"An effectual remedy" against the Hessian fly, which
has been so much inquired after and talked about, ... never has been and
probably never will be discovered. In truth, we regard the idea that a
remedy of this character exists, as being equally absurd with a belief
in the philosopher's stone. There is probably no such thing as sure and
infallible specifics against any of the insects which invade our crops,
any more than there is against those diseases which attack our persons.
..There is no remedy with which we can 'doctor' it away—no charm with
which we can say to it, " vanish presto;" yet there are measures, which
employed, will guaranty fair crops.. We shall hence proceed to review
them [i.e., the measures] in detail, treating first of those, which,
after a careful consideration of this topic, we regard as the most
important.
1. A rich soil.—This is a safeguard which has been strongly
urged by almost every one who has written upon this insect. Indeed an
inspection of different fields of wheat in a district where this enemy
is present, cannot fail to impress upon the observer the utility and
importance of this requisite. Other things being equal, the crops on
impoverished lands invariably suffer the most. ... Indeed, the farmers
themselves, in districts where the fly has prevailed, have all learned
from experience, that it is only upon fertile lands that it will do to
sow their wheat. Hence Ezra L'Hommedieu long ago intimated that the
Hessian fly on Long Island, by driving tbe farmers to manure their
lands, instead of a curse had actually been a blessing. He says, "the
land in Suffolk county and other parts of Long Island, was easily
tilled, and by continual cropping with wheat was so reduced, that on an
average not more than five or six bushels was raised to the acre. This
mode of husbandry was still pursued, and although the land was gradually
impoverished, the farmer found the crop, although small, more than
would pay for his labor and expense. The Hessian fly put an end to this
kind of husbandry, and in that respect has proved a blessing instead of a
curse; no other way being found to prevent the injury done by this
insect, but by highly manuring the land." ... It is doubtless the
additional strength and vigor enjoyed by plants growing upon a rich
soil, which enables them to withstand the depredations of this insect.
..Hence a rich soil enables a plant to elaborate a sufficient amount of
fluids for its own sustenance, in addition to that which is abstracted
from it by a few of these insects. We therefore regard this as a primary
and indispensable measure, and one which must accompany others..."
Redistributing the agronomic wealth. These two men are spreading manure.
The tale of soil regeneration is not one of simple
reconstruction following the realization of errors at the end of the
17th and beginning of the 19th centuries. While there seem to have been
profound improvements in soil quality during the first half of the 19th
century and while much of those improvements can probably be attributed
to more conscious consideration of soil management through rotation,
selection of cover crops, and the use of manures, this period also saw
the transition to greater use of off-farm nutrients such as sea bird
guano (bird droppings). As Stoll (see below) suggests, the use of these
off-farm natural fertilizers may have paved the psychological way for
the subsequent use of the synthetic fertilizers that soon appeared.
Ineed, the growing exploration of soil chemistry, spurred on by some of
these same concerns over soil depletion, eventually resulted in the
incorporation of synthetic fertilizers into the agricultural system.
While there is no doubt that synthetic fertilizers can
produce immediate increases in crop yields, over-reliance on such
fertilizers has sometimes led farmers to again abandon the precepts of
good soil managment that the Romans understood (albeit may have often
ignored), that the 15th and 16th century British (amongst others)
reiterated, that North American colonists forgot, and that Buel and
colleagues 'rediscovered'. One way of describing Biodynamics, the
organic movement, and other similar, more modern initiatives is to say
that they are yet another renaissance of sustainable soil management
necessitated by the apparent, widespread neglect of soil health and
overall farm sustainability.
For a very readable account of the history of soil use, see Dirt
by David R. Montgomery. For a more specific (yet still fun)
consideration of 19th century US soil management, see Steven Stoll's Larding the Lean Earth.
|
Of Flies, Canals, Dirt, Money and Wheat
by Conrad Vispo
The Hessians weren’t really to blame for the
downfall of Northeastern wheat growing in the late 18th
century, but they were convenient scapegoats. Widely despised as
mercenaries fighting for the British during the American Revolution,
their name was easily transferred to a small fly that began to ravage
wheat crops shortly after that war. Reality was more complex: Most
Hessians weren’t mercenaries in the modern sense of the word (instead
they were conscripted soldier hired out by their government), and the
evidence that they were agents of the fly’s introduction seems mixed.
Whatever its origins, the so-called “Hessian Fly” was a scourge, and
together with a variety of other plagues including the wheat midge and
wheat blast, it soon discouraged major wheat production in the Hudson
Valley.
Wheat was an important crop in our region during the 17th and 18th
centuries. Adrian van der Donck, who resided in the Hudson Valley
during the 1640s, sang the Valley’s praises as a wheat growing region.
In 1680, there are reports of wheat being sent by boat to NYC, and two
years earlier, the governor of New York reported that 60,000 bushels
were being exported annually from the City. By the mid 1700s, officials
describing agriculture along the Hudson called wheat “the staple” of
production and the “main bent” of most farmers. Aside from being
consumed locally, there was a strong market for wheat in the West
Indies, to where much NY wheat was sent in exchange for rum, sugar,
molasses, and sometimes slaves. During this era, documents from Albany
County (which then included Columbia County) often describe payments
based on the interchangeable currencies of beaver pelts, wampum and
wheat. Indeed, much of the rent paid by tenants of the Livingston Manor
was in wheat. By 1789, New York was exporting roughly 1,000,000 bushels
of wheat per year. Alexander Coventry, while farming near Hudson in the
late 1700s, recorded numerous wheat transactions in his diary and
frequently commented on the quality of the wheat grown on various lands
he visited; clearly, wheat was on the mind of him and his
contemporaries.
We estimate that Columbia County may have been
producing at least 190,000 bushels of wheat at the end of the 18th
century. Fifty years later wheat production in Columbia County was
less than 9,000 bushels, and wheat was an unimportant crop throughout
most of the Hudson Valley. Why?
Pests and disease were not the only troubles for wheat as the 19th
century began. To some degree, they may have been the symptoms of a
deeper problem – tired soil. By 1800, some fields of Columbia County had
been under constant cultivation for nearly 150 years. Growing plants
remove nutrients from the soil and, when those plants are harvested and
borne elsewhere, they take nutrients with them. To a certain degree,
plants, powered as they are by sunshine, can derive new nutrients from
the minerals in the soil and from the air around them, but such nutrient
income to the soil rarely offsets the nutrient costs of repeated
harvests. In the late 1700s, yields of grains were falling (see graph),
and the weaker plants were likely more susceptible to pests and disease.
Indeed, New York’s first state entomologist put proper soil care at the
heart of any response to the Hessian Fly. Hudson Valley farmers did
eventually respond to widespread soil exhaustion through a combination
of improved management (such as, crop rotations, use of legumes,
incorporation of manure) and increased nutrient inputs (for example,
natural fertilizers such as guano, marl, and buffalo bone meal and,
subsequently, synthetic fertilizers). But, by that time, producing wheat was no longer the center of the problem, selling it was.
Farmers had been going through an economic transition
as the focus of their farming shifted from growing their own sustenance
to being a source of that newly elevated form of livelihood - money.
Until the first decades of the 19th century, the main purpose
of most farms in our region was probably to produce food for the farm
family. As a result, many farms produced a little of everything.
Commerce of a planned surplus surely occurred and was important in
providing the farm household with items that it didn’t produce itself,
but that came on top of, rather than instead of, producing for the home.
By the mid-19th century, however, most farmers seem to have
been planning their farming based upon off-farm markets rather than
their own kitchen table, and changes in those markets made wheat
outmoded for Hudson Valley farmers by 1850.
The Erie Canal linking western New York to the Hudson
opened in 1826 and was soon transporting wheat. In 1837, the canal bore
500,000 bushels of wheat; by 1841, it was carrying around 1,000,000
bushels, together with hundreds of thousands of barrels of flour. Thirty
years later, New York canals were delivering some 71,000,000 bushels of
wheat and flour. But by then a newcomer, railroads, had already stolen
the show: railroads delivered nearly 300,000,000 bushels of wheat and
flour to Atlantic ports (not just from New York State) during the same
year. The deep, fresh soils of western New York could produce more wheat
for less money than could the Hudson Valley’s older, thinner lands. So,
farmers here looked to other crops for which their location gave them a
relative advantage. Hay (whose bulk made it relatively expensive to
transport long distances), rye (better suited to our soils and clime and
in demand by local rye-paper factories and NYC horse keepers), together
with fruits and dairy (both of which might go bad during shipment from
farther west) became prime crops.
In retrospect, while the Hessian Fly and other
pestilence no doubt saddened and frustrated many farmers, they may have
also been a useful, anticipatory spur for agricultural change that
economic conditions were soon going to demand. From our distance, the
name “Hessian” seems almost quaint, tainted by little of the bitter
animosity in which it no doubt originated. Likewise, through the long
lens of time, the havoc it wrought seems less black and white. Because
of it, farmers were already searching for alternative crops when rapidly
developing modes and routes of transport began outdating the previous
model of agricultural economics. Today, as the rising cost of fossil
fuels and the recognition of their possible environmental effects
pressure us to shrink transportation distances, we may begin to look at
recent agricultural challenges as the bittersweet ‘Hessian Fly’ that,
while truly painful, may also be preparing our agricultural landscape
for the next sea change brought on by the broader economic context, a
change that may include renewed regional wheat growing.
|