Home › Purchasing apartments › Agriculture: branches of agriculture. Branches of agriculture in Russia. Growing fruit crops and grapes

Agriculture: branches of agriculture. Branches of agriculture in Russia. Growing fruit crops and grapes

In June 2015, a scientific and practical conference was held in Yekaterinburg on the prospects for cultivating winter crops. As usual, it consisted of two parts - a theoretical part and a field inspection. Among the participants there were scientists from the Federal State Budgetary Institution "Kurgan Research Institute of Agriculture" and representatives of the state selection commission of the Perm Territory, heads of the regional Union of Livestock Breeders and the Uralselmash Group of Companies.

Director of the Ural Research Institute of Agriculture N.N. Zezin focused on new products in the selection of winter rye. Ferry, Alice, Yantarnaya are three new modern varieties offered by the institute. At the same time, Yantarnaya’s grain contains 5-6 times less anti-nutrient substances - water-soluble pentasans - than other varieties, which makes it possible to replace the share of barley in animal diets by 45% and ensure multimillion-dollar profits on the scale of just one pig-breeding complex.

The theme of winter rye has always been there. In agriculture - to control weeds, in feed production - to obtain the earliest possible green fodder, in organizational issues- to unload the spring sowing campaign, etc. With the help of winter rye, in the conditions of the Middle Urals, they achieved such “miracles” as obtaining three harvests per year. Of course, not grain, but green mass, and the scheme “winter rye - sowing of annual grasses - mowing rapeseed”, used on the former collective farm named after. Sverdlova, Sysertsky district, completely allowed this to be done.

It seems that the same thing is said year after year, but if there is a drought or a cold snap or something similar, the question is always raised: what does science tell us? This is the task of science, to identify in a timely manner possible ways of further development. So that there is always an additional or backup option for the development of agriculture for food security.

Winter rye and, in general, winter crops are in many ways a very interesting and, at the same time, very controversial area of crop production. Having a number of disadvantages, winter crops also have many irreplaceable advantages. New and seemingly quite unexpected promising areas always start small (when the first corn conference on grain technology was convened, only 5-7 specialists came, but now this is one of the main areas of feed production). And, although the conference this time was also not so numerous, serious and long-term issues were raised at it.

Folk selection of winter crops goes back to the distant past, and modern conditions their possibilities are far from exhausted. Since ancient times, many countries have used the so-called three-shelf system: fallow - winter crops - spring crops. This was due to the high adaptive ability of winter rye to obtain cost-effective yields even in the most unfavorable soil and climatic conditions.

Since 2006, the Ural Research Institute of Agriculture has begun breeding winter triticale, and now we are talking about starting our own Ural selection of winter wheat. The first, mostly still, results of exploratory studies show that if the productivity potential of modern varieties of winter rye in the conditions of the Urals is within 5-6 t/ha, then for winter triticale it is 6-7 t/ha, and for winter wheat under intensive conditions technology may be even higher. But the issue requires careful study, since “failures” in the yield of winter wheat over the years are still much more common than for the first two crops.

At the same time, the same thing may well happen with new winter crops as with rapeseed and corn, when in just a few years they provided a rapid increase in feed energy and, accordingly, milk productivity. And science is called upon and must always be ready to give a clear answer: what winter crop, what variety or hybrid will be advisable to cultivate under new economic and environmental conditions. Gradually, an even clearer, scientifically based relationship in the structure of winter and spring grain crops should emerge.

Head of the laboratory of selection and seed production of winter crops, Ural Research Institute of Agriculture G.N. Potapova spoke about the results of a study of 45-50 of the best Russian varieties of winter crops. The new winter triticale variety Istoksky 1, submitted for variety testing, exceeds the standard - Bashkir short-stemmed by as much as 0.83 t/ha.

It was noted that approximately half of the winter rye is now harvested for grain and half for green mass. Winter wheat is intended for harvesting only for grain. The new winter triticale variety Istoksky 1 has the advantage of being used for both grain and green mass. In this regard, it is somewhat similar to the well-known oat variety Universal 1, which is also a dual-use variety.

The positive side of winter crops as the earliest source of green mass was emphasized by the executive director of the Union of Cattle Breeders of the Urals E.P. Stafeeva. Fortunately, modern forage harvesting equipment allows for better harvesting of green mass. Having selected the optimal harvesting phase (and, accordingly, the ratio of fiber and protein), it is possible to provide animals with everything they need and, most importantly, a whole complex of vitamins and other biologically active substances, right from under the wheels. Everyone knows what it is like at the end of the harsh Ural winter, when fresh cucumbers or apples from a new harvest appear on the shelves in the spring. And for vegetable growing, winter crops are a “godsend” in terms of an excellent predecessor.

Senior research fellow Kurgan Research Institute of Agriculture N.Yu. Bannikova noted a decrease in the area of winter crops also in the Kurgan region. Until relatively recently, the area of winter crops reached 18% (300 thousand hectares), but now they amount to no more than 2%. At the same time, due to global warming, there is increasing interest in winter wheat. Especially in the southern regions of central Russia: Umka winter wheat was bred in Kurgan and zoned in Bashkiria.

Director of the Uralselmash Group of Companies D.V. Demyanov introduced the features of protecting winter crops and answered questions. During the conference, he advised on the fight against the harmful turtle, which in the southern regions of the Urals at times becomes a real disaster.

Chief agronomist of Derney LLC A.E. Belosludtsev shared his practical experience in growing new promising species and varieties of winter crops on his farm. The farm is not afraid of new things and tests varieties and crops that are still little known in the Urals. He is trying to sow flax, soybeans, and test in production conditions many new promising directions proposed by science. It is one thing to test a crop on small experimental plots, and quite another to test it on tens and hundreds of hectares under production conditions.

And thus, such enterprises as Derney LLC highlight new promising directions for all others (including revealing shortcomings that need to be eliminated). Currently, the farm is approaching harvesting 100 hectares of winter wheat and 100 hectares of winter triticale. And for the 2006 harvest, 1,800 hectares of winter crops will be sown.

Among other advantages, his report noted the increased adaptive adaptability of winter rye to the soil and climatic conditions of the Urals. No other grain crop can, without fertilizers and without any other soil improvement, provide a grain yield of 2.9 t/ha, which was obtained on the farm. According to the specialist, this crop has an increased ability to most completely and actively absorb natural nitrogen and nutrients from the soil.

At the end of the theoretical part of the conference, Director of the Federal State Budgetary Institution Ural Research Institute of Agriculture N.N. Zezin noted that in modern conditions it is necessary to strive for a more reasonable ratio of winter and spring grain crops. Once again he emphasized the undoubted merits and prospects of using winter crops in crop production. Including in terms of the possibility of wider maneuvering and regulation of future yields.

On the one hand, the area of winter rye in the region is gradually decreasing: in 2011 there were 27 thousand hectares, and in 2015 15 thousand hectares (including 12 thousand hectares of winter rye and 2-3 thousand hectares of winter triticale and wheat). At the same time, due to global warming and the development of new highly productive varieties, there is a gradual “northerning” of winter triticale and winter wheat (as happened with corn using grain technology, rapeseed for oilseeds and even soybeans). And, thus, winter crops are also one of the possible valuable promising areas for the future.

After the theoretical part, a demonstration of experimental crops and breeding sites took place. The Department of Winter Crops of the Ural Research Institute of Agriculture presented dozens of comparative testing plots of the best varieties from the Register of Breeding Achievements of Recent Years. A nursery of low-pentazan fodder winter rye was shown, the first, and still more preliminary, results for winter wheat were announced.

The winter triticale field Istoksky 1 was presented, and the representative of the Kurgan Research Institute of Agriculture N.Yu. Bannikova presented a whole large field of her institute's variety - Umka winter wheat.

Thus, despite the decrease in the area of winter rye; Despite some well-known shortcomings of winter crops, they may have a bright future. Objective reasons have currently led to a slight decrease in interest in them, but in some ways they are still irreplaceable.

No single crop can be a “panacea” in solving the problem of food security and import substitution, but together, in terms of overall diversification, they are designed to become complementary, both in the structure of areas and in the preparation of optimal diets.

As for the practice of holding such conferences, it is appropriate to note that we have a slightly different system of relations between science and production than in the West. Modern universities are not yet such universal specialized advisory centers. And so far we do not yet have many calls to farms of teachers and scientists to advise production workers (this is just being formed). But there is its own original direction, developed over decades. And what has been accumulated over decades is very valuable.

Trainings, Field Days, conferences organized, for example, by the Ural Research Institute of Agriculture together with related agricultural structures support the general literacy and general professionalism of specialists. In one concentrated day (first in a conference room, and then during field inspections, listening to messages from the best scientists and practitioners in a certain field, exchanging experiences), a specialist has the opportunity to receive a full cycle of theory and practice in any specific area.

In casual conversations you can always consult and resolve any issue. And thus, one of the representatives of the farm is called upon to attend one of these winter or summer events, if you want to consider yourself a professional in your field. Such conferences update knowledge, maintain scientific tone, and give new creative impetus.

Anatoly Ponomarev

Agriculture is represented by two large sectors - crop farming and livestock farming. Plant growing is a very ancient industry. Several thousand years ago, on the slopes of the Andes, the Quechua Indians grew potatoes. Rice was first processed in China 9,400 years ago.

Crop farming is a branch of agriculture engaged in the cultivation of cultivated plants, one of the core sectors of the Russian economy, actively supplying Russians with food. More than half of our food supply comes from crop production.

At the origins of plant growing, of course, were people. They noticed that the seeds of some plants that fell into the soil sprouted and produced a harvest. Gradually, people realized that to obtain a rich harvest they needed selected seeds, fertile soils, and good watering.

Conclusion: without human labor, the development of such an industry as crop production would not have occurred.

Crop production is the most important supplier of feed for livestock and a supplier of raw materials for a number of industries - food, perfumery, pharmaceuticals, textiles, as well as for ornamental horticulture.

Growing crops is also a large sector in the labor market and is of key importance in rural areas.

The branches of crop production are as follows:
- vegetable growing,
- field farming,
- gardening,
- forestry,
- grassland farming,
- melon growing,
- floriculture,
- other.

Where in Russia is crop production most developed?
To obtain high and sustainable yields, crops must be grown under certain natural climatic conditions. The duration of the growing season, requirements for heat, light, soil composition, and amount of precipitation are different for different plants. In this regard, the boundaries of distribution of agricultural crops are unequal.

In other words, so that under open air To get a good harvest of watermelons, you need long-term warmth, a lot of light, a certain humidity, and a significant duration of the frost-free period. All this is available in the southern regions of Russia, but not in the Urals or Siberia.

Conclusion: natural factors to the maximum extent influence the location of crop production industries.

In general, taking into account climatic conditions, crop production is widespread in our country almost everywhere, with the exception of permafrost areas.

Feature
A characteristic feature of agriculture, and in particular its crop production branch, is its seasonality, which leads to irregular use of labor throughout the year and uneven receipt of products and uneven profits. In terms of yield, the most important seasons are summer and autumn.

Main field crops in the crop production industry:
— grain crops (buckwheat, rye, wheat, oats, corn, barley),
— leguminous crops (peas, lentils, beans, beans),
- root vegetables (carrots, sugar beets, turnips),
— industrial crops (potatoes, sunflower, mustard),
— spinning crops (flax, cotton),
- medicinal plants and others.

The central role in organizing a rational crop production system belongs to the material and technical base. This is a complex of machines and equipment for system mechanization, production automation, tools, and other means of production.

The technological basis of crop production is the farming system. Mother Earth will give birth, and she needs appropriate care. On poor land the harvest will be poor.

The farming system includes: a seed production system, fertilizer systems, a water regime regulation system, a plant protection system from diseases and pests, and a machine system. As well as soil protection and environmental protection.

All systems related to crop production successfully working together lead to the development of this industry.

Keywords

MIDDLE URAL / SVERDLOVSK REGION / AGRICULTURE / PLANT CULTIVATION/ YIELD / COLLECTIVE FARMS / STATE FARMS / MIDDLE URAL / SVERDLOVSK REGION / AGRICULTURE / CROP PRODUCTION / PRODUCTIVITY / KOLKHOZ / SOVKHOZ

Annotation scientific article on history and archeology, author of the scientific work - Vladimir Nikolaevich Mamyachenkov

The history and economic efficiency of the sector is examined crop production agriculture a large industrial region of the country under the dominance of the administrative-command collective and state farm management system. The relevance of the topic is due to its high discussion potential, which has not lost its socio-political significance to this day. The scientific novelty lies in the fact that newly discovered archival materials are introduced into scientific circulation and the author’s concept of the research topic is outlined. The problem was developed using the example of the Middle Urals within the boundaries Sverdlovsk region as a typical old industrial region with a clear predominant development of the industrial sector of the economy. The study, in addition to archival materials, used a large volume of historical, factual and economic-statistical literature. It is emphasized that crop production The region throughout the Soviet period of the country's history was characterized by low economic efficiency and was chronically subsidized, requiring constant and comprehensive support. Based on data from sources and systematizing them in the form of tables, the author identifies objective and subjective reasons for low productivity and profitability crop production. The conclusion is made about the actual degradation of this important sector agriculture region in conditions of an ineffective system of public administration and mass socialization of the means of production.

Text of scientific work on the topic “Crop production of the Middle Urals in 1913-1991. : zone of risky farming"

Mamyachenkov V.N. Crop production of the Middle Urals in 1913-1991: a zone of risky farming / V.N. Mamyachenkov // Scientific dialogue. - 2016. - No. 4 (52). - pp. 212-228.

The journal is included in the List of Higher Attestation Commissions

and I to I C n "B R1VKIZHL1CH (LKSTOKU-

UDC 94(470.54)"1913/1991":633/635

Crop production of the Middle Urals in 1913-1991: a zone of risky farming

© Vladimir Nikolaevich Mamyachenkov (2016), Doctor of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Management Theory and Innovation, Institute of Public Administration and Entrepreneurship, Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B. N. Yeltsin (Ekaterinburg, Russia), [email protected].

The history and economic efficiency of the agricultural crop production sector of a large industrial region of the country under the dominance of the administrative-command collective and state farm management system is explored. The relevance of the topic is due to its high discussion potential, which has not lost its socio-political significance to this day. The scientific novelty lies in the fact that newly discovered archival materials are introduced into scientific circulation and the author’s concept of the research topic is outlined. The problem was developed using the example of the Middle Urals within the boundaries of the Sverdlovsk region as a typical old industrial region with a clear predominant development of the industrial sector of the economy. The study, in addition to archival materials, used a large volume of historical, factual and economic-statistical literature. It is emphasized that crop production in the region throughout the Soviet period of the country's history was characterized by low economic efficiency and was chronically subsidized, requiring constant and comprehensive support. Based on data from sources and systematizing them in the form of tables, the author identifies objective and subjective reasons for the low productivity and profitability of crop production. The conclusion is drawn about the actual degradation of this important sector of agriculture in the region under the conditions of an ineffective system of public administration and mass socialization of the means of production.

Key words: Middle Urals; Sverdlovsk region; agriculture; crop production; productivity; collective farms; state farms.

1. Introduction

Crop growing historically was the first branch of agriculture mastered by man. In terms of its economic role, it is quite

comparable to livestock farming, and in a number of countries and regions it is the leading sector of the agro-industrial complex. In particular, in Russia, crop production by value accounts for 55% of all agricultural products [Bibliotekar.Ru...]. In the Middle Urals (as the Sverdlovsk region, formed in 1934, is often called), crop production is the second most important branch of agriculture [People's Encyclopedia...]. Let us also recall that according to the type of plants grown, it includes such areas as

Grain crops (barley, sorghum, wheat, oats, rye, corn, rice, buckwheat, etc.);

Legumes (lentils, beans, soybeans, peas, etc.);

Forage crops (silage crops, forage grasses, forage melons, forage root crops);

Industrial crops:

a) textile crops (flax, cotton, hemp, jute);

b) food crops (sugar beets, sugar cane, medicinal plants, starch crops);

c) rubber plants (Hevea);

Vegetable and melon crops:

a) fruit crops (pepper, pumpkin, squash, cucumber, eggplant, tomato, zucchini);

b) leaf crops (spinach, leaf parsley, lettuce, cabbage, dill, etc.);

c) potatoes;

d) bulbous crops (garlic and onions);

e) melons (pumpkin, melon, watermelon, etc.);

f) root vegetables (turnips, parsley, radishes, parsnips, radishes, beets, carrots, celery, etc.);

Citrus fruits (lemon, tangerine, bergamot, orange, grapefruit, etc.);

Tonic crops (cocoa, tea, coffee, narcotic crops);

Oilseeds and essential oil crops:

a) essential oil crops (cumin, anise, coriander, etc.);

b) oilseeds (sesame, rapeseed, flax, hemp, mustard, coconut palm, castor oil, olive tree, sunflower);

Viticulture;

Gardening.

Due to the natural and climatic conditions in the Middle Urals, initially the most widespread types of crops were grains, legumes, fodder, vegetables, melons and industrial crops. In addition, in the second half of the 20th century, horticulture began to develop, within which the production of fruits and berries characteristic of the Urals was increased. Many other crops, which are rather exotic for the region, were grown in scanty or small quantities, usually in greenhouse conditions. In the literature and archival materials one can find traces of failed attempts to cultivate the most amazing plants in the Sverdlovsk region. For example, immediately after the Great Patriotic War Academician T. N. Godnev and Associate Professor D. A. Mashtakov proposed growing even the rubber plant kok-sagyz on the Ural soil [TsDOOSO, f. 4, op. 41, d. 240, l. 90].

Today, in the historiography of the development of plant growing in the Middle Urals, in our opinion, there is still a shortage of works based on materials from local archives and covering a large period of the history of our region. As for the existing developments, the most significant contribution to the development of the topics we have identified in the 1990s-2000s was made by V.P. Motrevich [Motrevich, 1993a; Motrevich, 1993b] and the author of this article [Mamyachenkov, 1999]. It seems to us that the proposed study should, to a certain extent, fill this gap.

2. Material and technical base

During the years of Soviet power, the technical basis of agriculture, naturally, underwent fundamental changes. And the point here, of course, is not the “advantages of socialism,” as communist ideologists claimed, but the steady progressive growth technical progress, characteristic of all socio-economic formations without exception. Moreover, the Soviet Union, no matter what they say, did not inherit the worst legacy - the first tractors appeared in Tsarist Russia. In 1913 there were 165 of them, and until 1917 about 1,500 more were purchased abroad and imported. During the Soviet period, the number of tractors, including in agriculture, increased significantly. Table 1 gives an idea of the dynamics of the number of tractors and their total power in agriculture in the Sverdlovsk region.

Table 1

Number and traction power of tractors in all categories of agricultural farms in the Sverdlovsk region in 1940-1985*

1940 1945 1950 1960 1970 1980 1985

Tractors, pcs. 5,300 5,100 6,000 8,277 15,723 21,397 24,995

Traction power, thousand l. With. 96 93 123 233 485 n/sv n/sv

* Sources: [Motrevich, 1993b, p. 50, 56; Sverdlovsk region..., 1971, p. 41; Sverdlovsk region..., 1987, p. 60-61].

The table shows that the production of tractors for agriculture really began only in the 1960s. For 30 years - from 1940 to 1970 - the number of tractors in the agricultural sector of the region tripled, and their total power almost fivefold. Over the next 15 years, the number tractor park increased by more than one and a half times (naturally, their power too). Thus, in the year that “perestroika” began, the total capacity of this park was approximately 8-9 times greater than in the pre-war year 1940. At the same time, the area under crops of all crops in the region increased over the same period only 1.35 times (Table 2). It is not difficult to calculate that, per hectare of arable land, the energy supply has increased no less than five times. It would seem that now the region’s agriculture would finally expand to its full extent, but this did not happen: the mentioned tractor power was in fact, like many other things in the USSR, “paper”, that is, it existed only in statistical reporting. In our opinion, there were two reasons for this.

Firstly, the collective and state farm form of ownership in no way contributed to the careful, thrifty use of fixed assets and production equipment. Loud song words." And everything around is collective farm, and everything around is mine” in real life often turned into complete indifference to technology and other material assets that agricultural enterprises had. In confirmation of this, many examples can be cited both from fiction and from archival materials.

Here is an example from fiction: “And they came out to a scattered brigade yard with one house and one small barn. The house was probably an office: on the top of it a pale pink flag with a torn edge was slightly moving. And the barn was only so wide that the slogan could fit in one line: “Forward, to the victory of communism!”

a multitude of brick-rusty, peeling-blue and peeling-green vehicles of unknown purpose with trunks, vents, hooks, and tanks, and a field kitchen, and trailers with propped or lowered drawbars - everything was scattered and abandoned on a large area just as mutilated, dug up land where you can hardly walk with your foot. And only one man in a grimy robe kept wandering from car to car, bending down, getting up, looking at something. There was no one else” [Solzhenitsyn, 1991, p. 283].

Let us recall that in the work of A. I. Solzhenitsyn the action takes place in 1949 in the Moscow region. And in July 1953, the following lines appeared in the transcript of a meeting of the Sverdlovsk Regional Committee of the CPSU: “... An extremely alarming situation has arisen in the region with preparations for harvesting and procurement of agricultural products. As of July 5, the following were not repaired at MTS and state farms: 1055 combines, 362 reapers, 227 threshers, 225 potato harvesters, 155 grain cleaning machines.<...>Many collective farms, state farms and subsidiary farms have not started construction and repairs storage facilities, covered drains, potato and vegetable storage facilities” [TsDOOSO, f. 4, op. 52, d. 57, l. 11].

Years passed, but little changed in relation to public property. Here, for example, is what the members of one of the commissions who examined the preparation of equipment for harvesting in various regions of the Sverdlovsk region in the summer of 1962 saw: “In a number of farms in Turinsky, Irbitsky, Slobodoturinsky, Makhnevsky and other areas there is not even a basic accounting of fuel consumption and production tractors and cars<...>In the Krasnogvardeisky State Farm, most of the machines are abandoned near forges, farms, residential buildings, they are not cleaned of dirt, pneumatic wheels are not unloaded, chains, cutting devices, measuring wires, belts, hoses, hydraulic systems, electrical equipment are not removed and are subject to damage. The combines slid off their stands, became warped, and the wheels froze into the ground. Exactly the same situation with the storage of equipment in Tolmachevsky, Pirogovsky, Kamensky, Visimsky, Smolinsky, Ordzhonikidze and other state and collective farms<...>We must put an end to such irresponsibility [TsDOOSO, f. 4, op. 65, d. 210, l. 63].

And two years later, already in 1964, a commission that examined the preparation of equipment already in the Kamyshlovsky district noted in its report: “At the Galkinsky state farm<...>The workshop area is in amazing disarray. It is difficult to make out which cars are new, old and scrapped. As of July 20, out of 23 combines, only one is ready for work, and out of 4 silage combines, not a single one is ready. On the collective farm "Free Labor", two out of 4 combines have been prepared. Of the 5 reapers under-

There are none prepared. Out of 8 trucks, 4 are not working. Cars are not prepared for cleaning. Drivers are not selected<...>Out of 7 combine harvesters, one was repaired at the Leninsky Put collective farm<.>There are only 4 combine operators” [TsDOOSO, f. 790, op. 2, d. 85, l. 34].

We will not say that this is exactly how it was always and everywhere, but in many, many farms one could observe a similar picture. And the more equipment there was, the worse it was used.

Secondly, the quality of the equipment supplied to the village often did not stand up to criticism (which Soviet citizens first learned about from the film “The Battle on the Road,” released on the country’s screens in 1961). Actually, it couldn’t have been any other way: the command-administrative system could win the “battle for the harvest” only in one proven way - by the quantity and mass of equipment and people thrown into this “battle.” “Quantity at the expense of quality” or “Victory at any cost” - these were her slogans both in war and in peaceful life. As a result, “the USSR produced 16 times more grain harvesters than the United States, while harvesting much less grain and making itself dependent on its import supplies” [Gaidar, 2006, p. 137]. Let's leave the number “16” on the conscience of E. T. Gaidar - most likely, of course, it is overestimated. But the significant superiority of the USSR in the production of combine harvesters is beyond doubt.

The low quality of equipment automatically led to the need to supply collective and state farms with a huge amount of a wide variety of spare parts. This mission was entrusted by the state to a special organization called “Agricultural Equipment”, which, due to an acute shortage of almost all items of industrial products, was forced to only admit its impotence. Her activities became a constant topic of the satirical magazine “Crocodile”, famous throughout the country. In the spring of 1991, when the fleet of equipment in need of urgent repairs reached cyclopean proportions, one of the documents of the CPSU Central Committee noted with alarm: “In the country as a whole, 440 thousand tractors, 254 thousand trucks, 332 thousand grain harvesters, more than 250 thousand tractor seeders and many other equipment” [Gaidar, 2006, p. 360]. It was already a collapse.

3. Cultivated areas

The Sverdlovsk region was far from being the smallest region in area even in the huge USSR, and therefore had quite impressive potential for sowing a variety of crops. Dynamics of the region's sown area over a fairly long period of time,

from 1913 to 1991, is presented in table 2. This small table perfectly demonstrates the amazing effect that we would call the “time series effect”: every few numbers lined up in a row provide rich food for historical and economic analysis.

Literally every row of the table causes considerable surprise. It turns out that all the time after the Great Patriotic War in the Sverdlovsk region there was a process of systematic reduction in crops of absolutely all crops, except for fodder. This is an extremely remarkable fact, which for some reason has not yet been noticed by researchers of the Ural village. It also follows from this table that the maximum acreage for grains and legumes, as well as potatoes and vegetables in the region occurred in the first half of the 20th century - in 1940 and 1945, respectively. As for industrial crops, their crops were practically eliminated during the years of Soviet power, apparently because they were unnecessary. But from 1913 to 1991, fodder crops increased manifold - almost 35 times. It seems that the regional authorities in their agricultural policy pursued only one general goal - to feed livestock. At the same time, interestingly, the number of livestock as a whole gradually decreased, but for some reason they still did not have enough feed (see for more details: [Mamyachenkov, 2016]).

Table 2

Sown areas of main agricultural crops

Name of crops Years

1913 1928 1940 1945 1950 1960 1970 1985 1991

Cereals and legumes 857 812 925 795 829 742 811 824 708

Potatoes 10 26 73 142 122 124 103 97 100

Vegetables 0.2 4.0 16 40 25 15 14

Industrial crops 23 22 6.4 n/st 6.6 0.4 0.1 0.3 3

Corn - - - - - 161 115 621 688

Other feed 20 31 125 73 121 412 455

Total cultivated area 914,894 1,146 1,053 1,153 1,454 1,498 1,542 1,499

Sources: [Motrevich, 1993b, p. 109, 113, 117, 120; National Economy..., 1956, p. 49; Sverdlovsk region..., 1971, p. 48; Sverdlovsk region..., 1976, p. 66-67; Sverdlovsk region..., 1987, p. 62-63; Sverdlovsk region..., Part 2, 1993, p. 30].

As a result of all these disturbances, the total sown area of all crops in the region during the Soviet period increased by approximately 1.6 times. And this could be considered as a very positive moment in the history of crop production in the Middle Urals, if the structure of crops had not changed radically and very ugly in favor of the above-mentioned forage crops (Table 3).

It follows from the table that the dubious “achievement” of the Soviet government in the Middle Urals was exactly a twofold reduction in the share of grains and legumes in the structure of crops for the period 1913-1991. It is also clearly visible that potatoes and vegetables, having fulfilled their “historical” mission in the hungry war and early post-war years, were later relegated to the background.

Why did the area of only forage crops increase throughout the Soviet period? It is difficult to give a definite answer here. There were several reasons why this often happens. In our opinion, the main ones are the following:

An acute shortage of meat and dairy products in the region, which required a priority solution to the problems of livestock farming;

Table 3

Structure of sown areas of main agricultural crops in farms of all categories of the Middle Urals (within the borders of the Sverdlovsk region) in 1913-1991, % *

Years Types of crops

grains and legumes potatoes vegetables and industrial melons corn other feed

1913 94 1,1 - 2,5 - 2,2

1928 91 2,9 0,4 2,4 - 3,5

1940 81 6,4 1,4 0,6 - 11

1950 72 10 2,2 0,6 - 15

1960 51 9 1 - 11 28

1970 54 7 1 - 8 30

1980 53 6 1 - 6 34

1991 46,8 7 0,2 46

Sources: [National Economy..., 1956, p. 52; Sverdlovsk region..., 1971, p. 50; Sverdlovsk region..., 1976, p. 66-68; Sverdlovsk region..., 1981, p. 68-69; Sverdlovsk region..., Part 2, 1993, p. 30] (author’s calculations).

Gradual reduction in numbers rural population;

The secondary position of agriculture compared to industrial complex regions;

Relatively sufficient provision of the population with bread products and potatoes (a significant part of the population consumed these two products in quantities even exceeding the norms of physiological consumption).

Let us add to the listed reasons one more, perhaps the main one: the productivity of all crops, one way or another, gradually increased due to improved agricultural technology and the massive use of inorganic fertilizers. This, to a certain extent, gave the regional leadership a reason to reduce the area under crops. But only to a certain extent - after all, back in 1954, the regional authorities were forced to state that “at present, due to intra-regional production (meaning only the public sector - V.M.) the needs for vegetables are met - by 39, for potatoes - by 43%.<...>It is required to increase the production of these products within the region by 2.5-3 times” [CDOOSO, f. 4, op. 53, d. 171, l. 35-36]. Thus, the regional leadership recognized the fact that collective and state farms cannot feed the region.

4. Crop productivity

The Sverdlovsk region traditionally belongs to the “risky farming zone,” that is, to regions where the likelihood of getting a good harvest is not very high due to the severity and variability of climatic conditions. Consequently, in such an area there is a high risk of losses from the effects of precipitation, drought, frost and other unfavorable factors. To minimize these risks, constant, painstaking and investment-intensive work is required to improve agricultural technology and increase the material and technical base of agriculture. On this occasion, one of the documents of the regional party committee rightly noted: “The instability of yield indicates that advanced methods of cultivating potatoes, vegetables and fodder crops in state and collective farms of the region are still poorly implemented” [TsDOOSO, f. 4, op. 64, d. 212, l. 173].

All of the above is confirmed in Table 4. It follows that the yield of crops cultivated in the region has increased significantly on average over half a century - twofold or more. This increase was achieved primarily due to the massive use of minerals

fertilizers, the production of which in the USSR in 1965-1990 increased from 3.3 to 34.7 million tons, that is, more than 10 times [Industry...]. At the same time, yields varied greatly from year to year. We deliberately included four consecutive years of data that ended the decade of the 1980s to show how much crop yields, such as grain crops, could vary depending on weather conditions. As proof, we will provide another quote from the certificate of the regional committee of the CPSU “On the state of crop and livestock production in the Sverdlovsk region” dated 1966: “The yield of grain crops over 10 years ranges from 7.4 centners in 1958 to 15.2 centners in 1959.” [CDOOSO, f. 4, op. 67, d. 163, l. 1].

Table 4

Productivity of agricultural crops on collective and state farms of the Sverdlovsk region in 1940-1990, centners per 1 ha *

1940 1957 1965 1978 1986 1987 1989 1990

Cereals 11.5 9.9 11.8 20.0 21.4 11.6 11.0 18.0

Potatoes 55 79 n/sv 108 109 101 109 105

Vegetables n/sv 105 n/sv 182 216 200 166 238

* Sources: TsDOOSO, f. 4, op. 64, d. 212, l. 173; op. 67, d. 163, l. 1; op. 92, d. 242, l. 39;

op. 113, d. 658, l. 4; op. 119, d. 495, l. 102.

According to Table 4, one cannot help but notice another important fact: the yield of all crops in public crop production in the Middle Urals was low, inferior (and sometimes significantly) to the yield of the same crops not only in developed countries, but also in private farms (hereinafter - private household plots) of the population. Suffice it to recall a well-known fact: in the Netherlands, for example, an average of 400 centners of potatoes per hectare are harvested annually [Information]. As for the household plots of the population, here, even according to clearly underestimated data (as his life experience suggests to the author), the potato yield of 109 centners per hectare was the minimum for the entire 1980s [Sverdlovsk region..., 1991. p. 108]. At the same time, from Table 4 it follows that for the public sector of crop production this yield was the maximum for the same decade. Which, however, is not surprising: on their own land, the same collective farmers worked with much greater dedication than on public fields, and they had more and more time for this. Here is just one figure: in 1985, Ural collective farmers worked in their private subsidiary plots almost three times longer than in 1940 [Uralskaya..., 2000, p. 223].

5. Efficiency of crop production

Low yields and the constantly worsening problem of labor shortage in rural areas made the public sector of crop production unprofitable (as, indeed, all of the region's agriculture as a whole). And if the yield at least gradually increased, the shortage of workers was literally killing the village: it should be taken into account that it was primarily young, physically healthy people who left it. At the same time, no persuasion, no threats of reprimands “along the party” or “Komsomol” lines, no wasted rallies of rural tenth-graders who “decided to stay in their native village” could no longer turn the situation around.

There was only one thing left to do - to increase the “help” of the city to the village. And gradually the number of city residents coming for agricultural work grew, turning into a powerful, continuous flow of people and equipment. Ultimately, the townspeople began to participate not only in the harvesting campaign, but also in sowing, weeding, etc. Sometimes entire organizations, workshops, and divisions went to agricultural work. They especially did not stand on ceremony with students and students of universities and technical schools - September almost officially became a non-school month for them. For example, in the harvest year of 1978 in the Sverdlovsk region, about 50 thousand students were involved in the harvesting campaign, and in addition - 5,500 machine workers and 1,400 drivers from industrial enterprises, 9,300 trucks, 300 cars, 1,500 tractors [TsDOOSO, f. 4, op. 92, no. 256, pp. 17, 22, 25, 27, 29, 43, 50].

A natural question arises: how was such “generous” assistance paid for? And how did this affect the cost of crop production and its profitability? The payment was simple: enterprise employees were guaranteed to receive their average salary at their place of work, and students were usually treated on a “residual” basis, underestimating the amount of earnings in every possible way. In this state of affairs, the real cost of production, of course, defied any reasonable calculation.

At the same time, the movements of large masses of people were inevitably accompanied by mass theft finished products, various types of incidents, and finally, outbreaks of epidemics. For example, in 1977, as a result of unsatisfactory sanitary and hygienic living conditions, several outbreaks of acute intestinal diseases occurred among students, workers and employees involved in harvesting: on the state farms “Gorelovsky” in the Chkalovsky district, “Kosulinsky” and “Loginovsky” in the Beloyarsky district district, "Krylovsky" Serovsky district, "Use-

Ninovsky" Turinsky district, "Chetkarinsky" Pyshminsky district [TsDOOSO, f. 4, op. 92, no. 256, pp. 4-5, 7]. As for theft, by the beginning of the 1990s, suburban farms were already actively involving the police and even riot police to protect their fields from “sneakers.”

But this is not enough: the quality of harvesting was often low, and the harvest obtained with such difficulty was often used criminally carelessly. In archival materials, for example, you can find a colorful description of the “cabbage story” that happened on October 7, 1962. The gist of it is that 35 vehicles loaded with cabbage spent the whole day driving around Sverdlovsk, since vegetable warehouses simply refused to accept their cargo [CDOO-SO, f. 4, op. 65, d. 210, l. 110]. And this did not always happen through the fault of the receiving party: often far from first-class products were delivered to vegetable warehouses in cities. For example, in the fall of 1964 alone, 5,000 tons of non-standard potatoes, 2,000 tons of mechanically damaged potatoes, 1,200 tons of rotten potatoes, and 1,700 tons of just soil were brought to Sverdlovsk [TsDO-OSO, f. 790, op. 2, d. 85, l. 38]. Therefore, by the way, with the onset of spring, many citizens were forced to work on bases literally drowning in rotting vegetables - to sort potatoes. Its losses amounted to many thousands of tons annually.

However, “second-class” potatoes and other vegetables were often in short supply, and vegetable stores were empty even in the regional center. In this regard, the first secretary of the regional party committee, K.K. Nikolaev, at the next meeting on June 26, 1965, said with annoyance: “The efficiency of our entire regional agricultural management is low. Now that we are entering a period when everything is ripening, we have nothing on sale from agricultural products. It would be possible to organize a trade in green peas, if there was some kind of enterprise, to bring them in boxes to the city. People are struck by how little and lively we sell early vegetables.” And then, as a true servant of the command-administrative system, he concluded: “The proposal was correct<...>- gather responsible people, once again remind about responsibility for quality, for shipment” [CDOOSO, f. 4, op. 67, d. 163, l. 36].

The only thing that somehow saved the situation was the presence of private household plots of the population. The Soviet government, proclaiming a course towards a “planned economy, free from the vagaries of the market,” still allowed the collective farm family to have a plot of land, usually up to 0.3 hectares in size and a certain amount of livestock. Townspeople were also allowed to have small pieces of land (and sometimes livestock). But even in these incredible conditions, private enterprise and the market worked wonders! For example, should the authorities pay attention

to create gardening partnerships, and immediately the production of fruits and berries in the region, which averaged 3.6 thousand tons in 1961-1965, increased in 1976-1978 to 8.0 thousand tons [TsDOOSO, f. 4, op. 92, d. 242, l. 2].

V. P. Motrevich gives the following figures: in 1950, the share of private household plots in the region was 59.5% in meat production, milk - 74.2%, eggs - 81.3%, potatoes - 70.8% and vegetables - 77, 4% [Motrevich..., 1988, p. 96]. But the population had at their disposal only 3-4% of arable land [Sverdlovsk region..., 1971, p. 51]. And the Central Ural “private owner” never gave up his position: in 1991, at the end of Soviet power, out of 1,170 thousand tons of potatoes grown in the region, private household plots and emerging farms produced 713 (or 61%), and out of 222 thousand . tons of vegetables - 91 (41%) [Sverdlovsk region..., 1993, p. 31]. In essence, this was an unspoken verdict on the command-administrative system.

Summing up, we can formulate the main conclusion: crop production in the natural and climatic conditions of the Middle Urals has always been and remains a high-risk area. In combination with the organic defects of the command-administrative system of economic management, it was doomed to permanent subsidies and the need for comprehensive assistance. The volume of this assistance eventually acquired unimaginable proportions, which made the presence of urban residents on collective and state farm fields an absolute necessity.

The policy of the Soviet authorities in the field of agriculture was characterized by contradictions, inconsistency, and sometimes even a basic lack of common sense. As a result, during most of the Soviet period of history, the area under crops of all crops, with the exception of fodder, was systematically reduced. It is possible that precisely realizing the enormous difficulties of developing crop production in the region, the party and economic leadership actually pursued a course towards the priority development of livestock farming (in addition, the shortage of meat and dairy products was felt more acutely).

This detrimental situation was to some extent smoothed out by the presence of private household plots of the population, which produced a significant amount of potatoes, vegetables, fruits and berries. But in general, a systematic shortage of crop products was felt until the early 1990s. The command-administrative system of economic management has shown its inferiority and complete failure here too.

Sources

1. CDOOSO - Documentation Center public organizations Sverdlovsk region.

F. 4 (Regional Committee of the CPSU), Op. 41, D. 240, L. 90.

F. 4 (Regional Committee of the CPSU), Op. 52, D. 57, L. 11.

F. 4 (Regional Committee of the CPSU), Op. 53, D. 171, L. 35-36.

F. 4 (Regional Committee of the CPSU), Op. 64, D. 212, L.173.

F. 4 (Regional Committee of the CPSU), Op. 65, D. 210, Ll. 63, 110.

F. 4 (Regional Committee of the CPSU), Op. 67, D. 163, Ll. 1, 36.

F. 4 (Regional Committee of the CPSU), Op. 92, D. 242, L. 2.

F. 4 (Regional Committee of the CPSU), Op. 92, D. 256, Ll. 4-5, 7, 17, 22, 25, 27, 29, 43, 50.

F. 790 (Rural Regional Committee of the CPSU), Op. 2, D. 85, Ll. 34, 38.

2. Solzhenitsyn A.I. In the first circle /A. I. Solzhenitsyn // Collected Works (small): in 7 volumes / A. I. Solzhenitsyn. - Moscow: INCOM NB, 1991. - T. 1. - 352 p.

Literature

1. Gaidar E. T. The Death of an Empire: Lessons for modern Russia/ E. T. Gaidar. - Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2006. - 440 p.

2. Information on-line [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: http://buturlinovka777.ru/potatoes.html.

3. Mamyachenkov V. N. Livestock husbandry of the Sverdlovsk region in the Soviet period: achievements and failures / V. N. Mamyachenkov // Scientific dialogue. - 2016. - No. 3 (51). - pp. 209-224.

4. Mamyachenkov V. N. Financial situation of the collective farm peasantry of the Urals in the post-war years (1946-1960): abstract of the dissertation... candidate of historical sciences / V. N. Mamyachenkov. - Ekaterinburg: Publishing House of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1999. - 23 p.

5. Motrevich V.P. Personal subsidiary farming of collective farmers of the Middle Urals in 1946-1958. (based on budget research materials) / V. P. Motrevich // Material well-being of workers of the Ural Soviet village. - Sverdlovsk: UC USSR Academy of Sciences, 1988. - P. 89-101.

6. Motrevich V.P. Development of agriculture in the Urals in the 1940s: dissertation. Doctor of Historical Sciences in the form of a scientific report / V. P. Motrevich. - Ekaterinburg: Ural State University Publishing House, 1993a. - 42 s.

7. Motrevich V.P. Agriculture of the Urals in statistical indicators / V.P. Motrevich. - Ekaterinburg: Science, 1993b. - 307 p.

8. People's encyclopedia of cities and regions of Russia “My City”. - Access mode: http://www.mojgorod.ru/sverdlov_obl/.

9. National economy of the Sverdlovsk region and the city of Sverdlovsk: statistical collection. - Sverdlovsk: Gosstatizdat, 1956. - 152 p.

10. Industry of the USSR [Electronic resource] // Wikipedia. - Access mode: http://grazdoff.ru/wiki/Industry_USSR.

11. Regional economics [Electronic resource] // Librarian.Ru. - Access mode: http://www.bibliotekar.ru/regionalnaya-economika/84.htm.

12. Sverdlovsk region in figures in 1992: in 2 parts - Ekaterinburg: Sverd-lobstat, 1993. - 156 p.

13. Sverdlovsk region in figures for 1971-1975: statistical collection. - Sverdlovsk: Middle-Ural. book publishing house, 1976. - 191 p.

14. Sverdlovsk region in numbers. 1966-1970: statistical collection. - Sverdlovsk: Statistics, 1971. - 148 p.

15. Sverdlovsk region in numbers. 1976-1980: statistical collection. - Sverdlovsk: Middle-Ural. book publishing house, 1981. - 175 p.

16. Sverdlovsk region in numbers. 1981-1985: statistical collection. - Sverdlovsk: Middle-Ural. book publishing house, 1987. - 127 p.

17. Sverdlovsk region in numbers. 1986-1990: statistical collection. - Ekaterinburg: Middle-Ural. book publishing house, 1991. - 144 p.

18. Ural Historical Encyclopedia. - Ekaterinburg: Akademkniga, 2000. - 640 p.

19. Avtomash.ru [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: http://www. avtomash.ru/pred/muzei_t/muzei_t.htm.

20. Ze Student Journal: Information portal [Electronic resource]. - Access mode: http://zsj.ru/otrasli-selskogo-hozyaystva-9.html.

Crop Production in Middle Ural in 1913-1991: Area of Risk Farming

© Mamyachenkov Vladimir Nikolayevich (2016), Doctor of History, associate professor, Department of Theory of Management and Innovations, The Institute of Public Administration and Entrepreneurship, Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B. N. Yeltsin (Yekaterinburg, Russia), [email protected].

The history and economic efficiency of crop production sector of agriculture in major industrial region of the country under the rule of the administrative-command collective and state farms management system is studied. The relevance is determined by high discussion potential of the subject retaining its socio-political significance to the present day. Scientific novelty consists in the fact that the newly discovered archive materials are introduced in the scientific circulation, and also by the fact that the author's concept of the research topic is given. The development is carried out by the example of the Middle Urals within the boundaries of the Sverdlovsk region as a typical old industrial region with a clear preferential development of industrial sectors of the economy. The study, in addition to archival material, uses a large amount of historical, factual, economic and statistical literature. that the regional crop production throughout the Soviet period of the country's history had a low economic efficiency and was chronically subsidized, required constant and comprehensive support. Based on the data sources and organizing them in the form of tables, the author reveals the objective and subjective causes of low

productivity and profitability of crop production. The conclusion is made about the factual degradation of this important sector of regional agriculture in conditions of ineffective state governance and mass socialization of the means of production.

Key words: Middle Ural; Sverdlovsk region; agriculture; crop production; productivity; kolkhoz; sovkhoz.

Material resources

TsDOOSO - Tsentr dokumentatsii obshchestvennykh organizatsiy Sverdlovskoy

region (In Russ.).

F. 4 (Obkom KPSS), Op. 41, D. 240, L. 90. F. 4 (Obkom KPSS), Op. 52, D. 57, L. 11. F. 4 (Obkom KPSS), Op. 53, D. 171, L. 35-36. F. 4 (Obkom KPSS), Op. 64, D. 212, L. 173. F. 4 (Obkom KPSS), Op. 65, D. 210, Ll. 63, 110. F. 4 (Obkom KPSS), Op. 67, D. 163, Ll. 1, 36. F. 4 (Obkom KPSS), Op. 92, D. 242, L. 2.

F. 4 (Obkom KPSS), Op. 92, D. 256, Ll. 4-5, 7, 17, 22, 25, 27, 29, 43, 50. F. 790 (Sel"skiy obkom KPSS), Op. 2, D. 85, Ll. 34, 38.

Solzhenitsyn, A. I. 1991. V kruge pervom. In: Sobraniye sochineniy (maloye):

v 7 t., 1. Moskva: INKOM NB T. (In Russ.).

Avtomash.ru. Available at: http://www.avtomash.ru/pred/muzei_t/muzei_t.htm. (In Russ.).

Gaydar, E. T. 2006. Gibel "imperii. UrokidlyasovremennoyRossii. Moskva: ROSSPEN. (In Russ.).

Information on-line. Available at: http://buturlinovka777.ru/potatoes.html. (In Russ.).

Mamyachenkov, V. N. 1999. Materialnoye polozheniye kolkhoznogo krestyanstva Urala v poslevoyennye gody (1946-1960 gg.): avtoreferat dissertat-sii ... kandidata istoricheskikh nauk. Ekaterinburg: Izd-vo UrO RAN. (In Russ.).

Mamyachenkov, V. N. 2016. Zhivotnovodstvo Sverdlovskoy region in the Soviet period: dostizheniya i provably. Scientific dialogue, 3 (51): 209-224. (In Russ.).

Motrevich, V. P. 1988. Lichnoye podsobnoye khozyaystvo kolkhoznikov Srednego Urala v 1946-1958 gg. (according to materialam byudzhetnykh issledovaniy). Materialnoye blagosostoyaniye truzhenikov uralskoy sovetskoy derevni. Sverdlovsk: UNTs AN SSSR. 89-101. (In Russ.).

Motrevich, V. P. 1993a. Razvitiye selskogo khozyaystva na Urale v 1940s gg: disser-tatsiya. doktora istoricheskikh nauk v forme nauchnogo doklada. Ekaterinburg: Izd-vo UrGU. (In Russ.).

Motrevich, V. P. 1993b. Selskoye khozyaystvo Urala v pokazatelyakh statistiki. Ekaterinburg: Science. (In Russ.).

Narodnaya entsiklopediya gorodov i regionov Rossii “My city”. Available at: http://www.mojgorod.ru/sverdlov_obl/. (In Russ.).

Narodnoye khozyaystvo Sverdlovskoy oblasti i goroda Sverdlovska: statisticheskiy sbomik. 1956. Sverdlovsk: Gostatizdat. (In Russ.).

Promyshlennost"_SSSR. Vikipediya. Available at: http://gruzdoff.ru/wiki/Promyshlennost"_SSSR. (In Russ.).

Regional economics. Bibliotekar".Ru. Available at: http://www.bibliotekar.ru/re-gionalnaya-economika/84.htm. (In Russ.).

Sverdlovskaya oblast" v tsifrakh. 1966-1970: statisticheskiy sbornik. 1971. Sverdlovsk: Statistika. (In Russ.).

Sverdlovskaya oblast" v tsifrakh. 1976-1980 gody: statisticheskiy sbornik. 1981. Sverdlovsk: Sred.-Ural. kn. izd-vo. (In Russ.).

Sverdlovskayaoblast" v tsifrakh. 1981-1985 gody:statisticheskiysbornik. 1987. Sverdlovsk: Sred.-Ural. kn. izd-vo. (In Russ.).

Sverdlovskaya oblast" v tsifrakh. 1986-1990 gody: statisticheskiy sbornik. 1991. Ekaterinburg: Sred.-Ural. kn. izd-vo. (In Russ.).

Sverdlovskaya oblast" v tsifrakh v 1992g.: v 2-kh ch. 1993. Ekaterinburg: Sverdlobl-stat. (In Russ.).

Sverdlovskaya oblast" v tsifrakh za 1971-1975 gody: statisticheskiy sbornik. 1976. Sverdlovsk: Sred.-Ural. kn. izd-vo. (In Russ.).

Uralskaya istoricheskaya entsiklopediya. 2000. Ekaterinburg: Akademkniga. 640. (In Russ.).

Ze Student Journal: Information portal. Available at: http://zsj.ru/otrasli-selskogo-hozyaystva-9.html. (In Russ.).

Agriculture plays a significant role in the Ural industrial complex. Approximately 2/3 of all agricultural land is arable land, the rest is pastures, pastures, and hayfields. Forest-steppe and steppe territories are most plowed. Grain farming is pronounced here, the basis of which is the crops of spring wheat. In the crops of the Urals and Trans-Urals north of Perm and Yekaterinburg, wheat gives way to winter rye.

Suburban agriculture with the production of fresh vegetables, herbs, and whole milk products has long developed around industrial centers. The number of greenhouses and greenhouses using thermal waste from power plants and enterprises is growing.

Natural hayfields and pastures predominate in the food supply for livestock farming in mountainous and taiga areas; In the rest of the territory, feed is produced in field crop rotations. Moreover, in the Middle Urals the role of clover is great, in the Southern Urals - corn.

Livestock farming is dominated by large cattle dairy and meat and dairy directions. Pig farming is more confined to suburban areas and the forest-steppe Trans-Urals; sheep farming is more common in the steppes of the Southern Urals.

Poultry farming is developing near large industrial centers, represented by modern state and private poultry farms. Complexes for the production of beef, pork, and milk have been built.

It should be noted that agrarian reforms in the Urals, as well as throughout Russia, have been going on for many years, but their focus on replacing the administrative-command system with a market system with the priority of industrial democracy, economic freedom and self-government of economic entities is being implemented with difficulty.

With the transition to developed market relations, the number of farms in the Urals began to grow. In the process of forming a new agrarian structure, some farms in the Urals adapted to the market, while maintaining fixed assets. Many managers, specialists and active workers of such enterprises were interested in transforming the collective farm into a private one. The general trend of recent years, not only in the Urals, but throughout Russia, is a reduction in the number of farms and an increase in the area of land per farm.

In some regions of the Urals, municipal enterprises for the production, processing and sale of agricultural products are being created on the basis of insolvent farms.

In transitional conditions, the priority is the principle of self-financing of agriculture in the Urals with the involvement of budget funds, support and ensuring the maximum stimulating role of these funds.

In general, speaking about the agriculture of the Urals and its development, it should be noted that its role in the economic importance of the country is much less than the role of industry. The bulk of agricultural products are consumed within the region, and many livestock products must be partially imported. Mainly grain and flax products are exported from the Urals.

Geography materials:

Concept and types of recreational resources
Recreation (Polish rekreacja - rest, from Latin recreatio - restoration): 1) holidays, vacations, school breaks (obsolete). 2) Recreation room (outdated). 3) Rest, restoration of human strength expended in the process of labor. In this meaning, the term “Recreation” has been used since the 60s...

Features of socio-economic development of regions
According to the level of socio-economic development, the nature of the sectoral structure and the directions of production specialization of farms in the intra-republican and inter-district division, taking into account natural and economic conditions and existing production and economic relations, the economic complex of the Republic...

The state of the Siberian metallurgical base in the conditions of the formation of market relations
Siberia and the Far East account for approximately one-fifth of the cast iron and finished rolled products produced in Russia and 15% of the steel. This metallurgical base is characterized by relatively large balance reserves of iron ore. As of 1992, they were estimated at 12 billion tons. This is approximately 2 ...

Crop farming is agriculture, which is the most important sphere of human activity, since thanks to it people receive basic food products, raw materials for their production, animal feed, and raw materials for industry.

Although Russia's crop production is not in the best position, Russia is among the world leaders producing crop products. Of all arable land in the world, the share of Russian land is 10 percent.

Most of the crops grown in Russia are flax, potatoes, sunflowers, and sugar beets, but the main role is given to grains, namely wheat. Cereal cultivation is widespread throughout Russian territory. In addition to wheat, rye and oats, barley and corn, millet and buckwheat, and rice are grown.

Along with grains, legumes (soybeans, lentils, beans, peas), industrial crops (sunflower, flax, sugar beets), vegetables, and melons are grown. Fruit growing, potato growing, and viticulture are also developed in Russia.

In which regions of Russia is crop production most developed?

The distribution of plant crops in the country is determined by their biological characteristics, which require a certain natural environment, as well as socio-economic factors. Each crop belongs to a specific natural complex: soil quality, growing season, degree of moisture, light requirements, temperature.

Plant growing in Russia has received the greatest development in the steppe and forest-steppe, where there is a warm mild climate, fertile soils, and optimal levels of moisture and heat.

The Central Black Earth region is considered the most plowed region, followed by the North Caucasus and Volga regions, they are called the breadbaskets of Russia.

Winter wheat is cultivated in the Central Black Earth region, on the Volga right bank, in the North Caucasus.

Spring wheat is cultivated in the south of Eastern and Western Siberia, the Volga region, the Southern Urals, and the Far East.

Barley is distributed to the south of the Caucasus from the east of Primorsky Krai, north Arkhangelsk region.

Oats are planted in the forest zone and forest-steppe Siberia and the Far East.

Peas are allocated to the Non-Chernozem zone, lentils – to the north of the Central Black Earth region.

Millet is grown in the steppe zone. Buckwheat is cultivated from the Arkhangelsk region to the Black Sea region and the North Caucasus.

Rice grows near the Don and Kuban rivers, in the Sarpinskaya lowland (Kalmykia), the Volga-Akhtuba floodplain (Arkhangelsk region), and the Khanka lowland (Far East).

Sunflower is grown in the dry steppe and steppe zones. North Caucasus region gives greatest number sunflower seeds.

Sugar beets are mainly grown in the Central Black Earth Region, in the North Caucasus. In the Urals, in the forest-steppes of the Volga region, this crop is grown on a small scale.

In the south of the Non-Black Earth Region, flax is cultivated; the area under crops has decreased in recent years, but the experience of the crop production system in Russia has suggested that the crop is quite promising.

In the south of the Urals, Stavropol region, and Lower Volga region, mustard crops are common.

Potatoes are grown over vast areas, but forest-steppe and forest zones are more favorable for this.

Popular in the category: