At the last German Census of trades and callings (1895) the number of persons engaged chiefly in agriculture and forestry was 8,300,000, or about 37½ per cent of the total productive population. This is about the same percentage shown by the U.S. census of 1900, which was 35.9 per cent; but this latter figure would be increased by the large number of land labourers [A (2 l)]counted simply as laborers. At the same census of 1895 the number of individual agricultural undertakings was 5,500,000, with an area of 43,200,000 hectares (1 hectare = 2½ acres). Of this total “agricultural” area 7,600,000 hectares are woods, to which must be added 6,100,000 hectares of timber-land devoted purely to forestry. The greater part of the forests, about 7,000,000 hectares, is in the possession of the German states, especially Prussia and Bavaria, and of the local parishes and municipalities; though many forests are owned by large landed proprietors and by private foundations and associations. In strong contrast to the primitive forestry conditions that prevail in the United States, German forests, usually even those owned privately, are nurtured with all the care that the highly developed technic of forestry has made possible, the period of cultivation not seldom being 100 years. In this way 11,000,000 hectares were devoted to the cultivation of high timber, i.e., 2,600,000 hectares to leaf-bearing trees, 8,400,000 hectares to pines and firs. The yield of lumber in 1900 was 20,000,000, of firewood, 18,000,000, of stumps and brushwood, 10,500,000 cubic meters, besides the byproducts, especially tan-bark. Yet this yield does not supply the demand for wood in Germany. In 1904 lumber and building timber were imported to the extent of $ 20,000,000.

Division of Land and Kinds of Production. – Of the total agricultural area in 1904, 26 per cent was woodland, 49 per cent arable land, including gardens and vineyards, 11 per cent meadows, and [26]five per cent pasture-land. Of the arable land, 61 per cent was planted with grain and leguminous crops, 17½ per cent with chopped crops, especially with potatoes and sugar-beets, 10 per cent with forage, 2.6 per cent with fruit and garden vegetables, and 8.7 per cent remained fallow. As regards grain, the dependence of Germany on foreign imports has not increased essentially in recent years. At times it has even decreased. On an average the yearly imports of grain exceed the exports by 2,000,000,000 kilograms, worth $ 125,000,000; i.e., as to value, about 1–6 or 1–7 of the German yield, or, as to quantity, about 1–5. In live stock, Germany imports horses, oxen, and cows for $ 45,000,000; also hogs, but to a limited extent, owing to the restrictive hygienic (in reality protective) measures; further, hides and guts. On account of the ever-increasing intensity in the cultivation of the soil, the number of sheep in Germany has decreased from 28,000,000 in 1860 to 9,700,000 at present (U.S. 62,000,000). On the other hand, from 1873 to 1900 the number of horses increased from 3,300,000 to 4,200,000 (U.S. 16,000,000), the number of cattle from 15,700,000 to 19,000,000 (U.S. 61,400,000), and the number of hogs from 7,000,000 to 17,000,000 (U.S. 48,600,000). In 1900 for every 100 inhabitants there were 7.5 horses (U.S. 22), 33.6 head of cattle (U.S. 81), and 30 hogs (U.S. 82). From the high and increasing prices of land alone one could infer that in Germany there has been a considerably greater increase in weight and quantity, than in quality. In 1900 the sale-value of horses was $ 575,000,000, of cattle more than $ 1,000,000,000, and of hogs, $ 250,000,000. As to the number of horses and cattle per hectare, Germany and England are about equal; but Germany is far ahead in hogs, and [A (2 r)]England in sheep. In all these categories, except sheep, Germany is ahead of France.

Of the great staple side-products of German agriculture, sugar and alcohol are by far the most important. Sugar-beets utilize the best German soils, while Irish potatoes for spirits make profitable the cultivation of the worst, especially the sandy soils in east Germany. In the form of alcohol the bulky crop, which could not be shipped profitably, is made easily transportable, and thus this soil is brought into cultivation. Both these industries have been nurtured [27]up to their present importance by certain protective measures, and have been kept in immediate connection with the production of the raw material. Alcohol-distilleries owned by farmers, especially the smaller ones, have been favored in the way of taxation. Such a distillery is allowed to produce a certain fixed quantity of alcohol on the payment of the minimum of revenue. Accordingly, of the 13,200 grain and potato distilleries in Germany in 1900 there were less than a thousand that were not owned by farmers. Besides both industries are strongly organized into trade unions – (“Kartelle”). The total product of all alcohol distilleries in 1903–1904 amounted to 3,850,000 hectoliters of pure alcohol, of which 3,330,000 was distilled from grain and Irish potatoes. Of potatoes, 2,660,000,000 kilograms were used; of grain, 380,000,000 kilograms.

The total yield of Irish potatoes in Germany in 1904 was 36,330,000,000 kilograms. As a food-product, potatoes play a larger part in Germany than anywhere else; and in the production of potatoes Germany trebles the United States and is equaled only by Russia. Sweet potatoes are not raised in Germany. As to other products, the German climate prohibits the production of cotton and, practically, of Indian corn. The cultivation of tropical fruits is likewise excluded. As to other fruits, Germany and the United States are favored, each for special sorts. In the cultivation of grapes, for fine wines, Germany has a considerable advantage, owing to the age of this industry and the care that has been bestowed upon it. Of the world’s total yield of grain, (wheat, rye, barley, oats) in 1903, which was estimated at 285,000,000,000 kilograms, Germany produced 24,500,000,000 kilograms, the United States 91,100,000,000 kilograms, or three and seven-tenths times as much as Germany. However, it is claimed that the estimate for Germany is too low. In 1903 Germany had 1,800,000 hectares in wheat, less than one-eleventh as much as the United States had; though the yield in the latter country was only four and eight-tenths times greater. In 1903 the yield of wheat per hectare in Germany was 1650 kilograms (U.S. 850 kilograms), in 1902 it was 1540; and in 1904 it was again 1650. On the better soils the average yield is often more than double this amount. The yield of rye was 10,000,000,000 kilograms (U.S. 750,000,000 kilograms); of barley 3,300,000,000 kilograms (U.S. 3,000,000,000); and of oats 7,900,000,000 kilograms (U.S. 12,400,000,000). The money value of the American yield of [28]1903 is estimated at $ 1,740,000,000 (1902: $ 1,720,000,000), i.e., only somewhat more than double the value of the German yield, if we apply here the same method of valuation. This is explained by the fact that for grain Germany is import-territory, and es[A (3 l)]pecially by the fact of the agrarian protective tariff.

Land Holdings and Indebtedness. – The superiority of Germany as regards the yield of grain per hectare is due to the more intensive cultivation of the soil, and particularly to the more general use of fertilizers. In this respect Germany would be even further ahead, if the size of the farms had been developed from a technical point of view, as has been the case in England and America. In contrast to the American farmer, who lives isolated in the midst of his broad acres, from time immemorial the small German husbandman has been a villager. This custom of settling in villages has perpetuated a system of piece-meal farming in Germany, which makes impossible the most economic utilization of the soil. On the other hand, large landed proprietors are not infrequently prevented from disposing of superfluous and outlying land by mortgages held on their estates; or their property may be entailed. In contrast to such estates as are too large to be farmed profitably, on account of the lack of capital on the part of their aristocratic owners, there is a very much larger class of holdings which are too small to permit the use of machinery. Both kinds, which are of impracticable size, diminish the average yield. This is especially true of the peasant-farms. But both classes show no inclination to adapt themselves to economic conditions, – the first, because their owners believe their social position of their family is determined by the limits of their real estate; the second, partly because of the usually equal division of land among the heirs, on the death of an incumbent, as opposed to the English common law, partly because the desire to be independent of the uncertainty of wages makes these small owners hold their land with great tenacity and even acquire more when this is possible, because in this way they have an opportunity to enjoy the fruits of their labor, of which no one can deprive them. From a business point of view, such piece-meal farming is unprofitable, but since practically no new land is to be had, except by reclaiming moors and swamps [29]at great expense, this demand for small farms has run up the price very considerably. After deducting for wages and expenses even the larger farms net their owners only from one and one-half to two and one-half per cent. On account of the high price of land, the indebtedness is large. This has also been largely increased by the very favorable German laws regulating mortgages, which have, in fact, made mortgages one of the safest forms of investment. Consequently, credit is easy; and there are a number of public and private mortgage-banks, which lend money on real estate, up to a fixed part of its assessed valuation. These mortgages have a regular negotiable form and are handled on the stock exchange. On first mortgages the rate is low, being always under four per cent. Many of these mortgage-banks will liquidate the indebtedness in consideration of the payment of an additional interest; and recently the suggestion has been made to meet in this way also a life insurance premium, so that on the death of the debtor the obligation ceases. The total amount of such mortgage-indebtedness in Germany has not been determined statistically. The most recent assessments in Prussia, for purposes of taxation, [A (3 r)]show that here the indebtedness of those engaged chiefly in farming amounts to 26.4 per cent of their entire property, real and personal, and to 31.1 per cent of the value of their realty. Further, farms and parcels of agricultural land have been classified and graduated according to extent and yield; and on this basis it has been found that an indebtedness of 18.6 per cent in case of the small parcels averaging eight hectares each, increases to 33.1 per cent and more, in the case of the large rural estates. This is accounted for largely by the fact that such large holdings are regarded as a luxury and are subject to frequent transfer. In the north-east of Prussia, where there are few industries, in one district the indebtedness runs up to from 53 to 58 per cent, on an average, for all classes of freeholders; and in the Königsberg district the indebtedness of the second largest class of holdings (200 hectares average) is 67.3 per cent (entire property) and 73.5 per cent (real p[roperty]). In the district of Coblenz, Rhine, where small holdings are the custom, the indebtedness sinks as low as 2.4 per cent of the entire, 2.9 of the real estate. This is due to the fact that small lots, not offering a suitable opportunity for investment, are sold for cash. In Hanover and Westphalia, where holdings are of moderate size, the indebtedness fluctuates from 14 to 15 per cent (and from [30]23 to 28 per cent of real property). So far as there are any reliable statistics on these matters for America, it would seem that those farmers in the grain-states, for instance Nebraska, who have bought their land privately, instead of from the state, are more heavily in debt than the average German farmer, certainly than the small German farmer. But there is this difference: The failure of a German farmer means a much greater catastrophe than the failure of an American farmer. In the first place, there is proportionately more capital invested in buildings and equipment, and a failure involves a greater number of creditors. In the second place, class distinctions are rigid in Germany; there is a sharp differentiation between town and country, between farming and business. When the German farmer fails, there is nothing else for him to do. As compared with American conditions, the large amount of capital invested in buildings, as barns, sheds, etc., is especially noteworthy. – This fact is explained by the climate and the more highly developed condition of the country. Despite the high price of land and the relatively backward condition of east Germany, the value of buildings in the extreme east is from 30 to 50 per cent of the value of the property; and even in the case of large estates the incumbrance of buildings amounts to from $ 60 to $ 75 per hectare of land, occasionally as much as $ 175 per hectare (in England under $ 50). In the east the value of tools and implements per hectare is only about $ 12; in the west and southwest as much as $ 65. In east Prussia the value of live stock per hectare varies from $ 15 to $ 100 for the different classes of farms; though of course in the case of regular stock-farms the figures are larger. In a large number of cases observed in east Germany the investment was, on an average, apportioned as follows: Land 49 per cent, buildings 24 per cent, live stock 13.6 per cent, tools, implements, etc., 4.4 per cent, supplies 9 percent. [A (4 l)]Considering the climate, the possible relations would be about thus: Land 30 per cent, buildings 23 per cent, live stock 20 percent, tools, machinery, etc., 12 per cent, supplies 15 per cent. Deviations from this form are due to those social conditions which diminish the working capital by running up the cost of the land and of the dwelling-house.

[31]Rotation in Crops. – On account of the exceedingly varied and manifold system of rotation in crops, it is impossible to lay down any universal principles regarding this feature of agriculture in Germany. On the best soils, i.e., in middle and western Germany, there is free succession in crops; but on many large estates in the east field-grass farming is the rule (Feldgraswirtschaft); but this is greatly modified and complicated by the cultivation of potatoes and sugar-beets. Stock-farms, pure and simple, are possible only here and there. The sowing of grain on the same land year after year, as it is done on the virgin soils of America, is regarded as a sort of agricultural robbery, and is practised only by farmers in reduced circumstances. For the rest, the living-conditions of the German husbandman are in many respects quite different from those of the American farmer:

Taxation. – In most of the German states, the old state tax on realty has been turned over to the local parishes and municipalities, and this has lightened greatly for the farmer the burden of taxation. For instance, a small husbandman in Prussia (which has assumed a very considerable part of the expenses of schools for the local communities) pays to the state one-half per mille on his property and three per cent of his income. To this must be added the taxes for the parish, district, and province. As compared with an American farmer in a grain state, the total taxes of a German farmer are much lower, principally because the American method of taxation places a much heavier burden on realty.

Railways: In this connection the German system of state railways deserves mention. These not only surpass the American lines in cheapness and effectiveness of service, meeting especially the needs of the large middle class, but their management warrants a permanent and uniform tariff policy. A system of district railway councils makes possible the adaptation of the service to the needs of all interests.

[32]Insurance (fire, hail, cattle): More than one-third of the fire insurance in Germany is in the hands of public societies ($ 12,000,000,000 against $ 23,500,000,000 in private companies), and is largely compulsory insurance. The advantage of this is that risks which are not firstclass find a relatively cheap opportunity for insurance. Insurance against hail (about $ 625,000,000) is mostly mutual (about two-thirds), but has not yet become general by any means. There is also compulsory insurance against certain epidemics in cattle; but for the rest insurance on live stock is mostly local and mutual.

Agricultural Associations. – Next to Denmark Germany has the most highly developed system of agricultural associations, or alliances. The most important form, and the first to appear in Germany, is that created by Raiffeisen. The Schulze-Delitzsch system also plays a considerable part. Of such societies there are more than 23,000, with a membership of about 3,500,[A (4 r)]000. There are 4,200 credit-societies, with 2,000,000 members, for the purpose of securing credit otherwise than on mortgages; 1,600 for the mutual buying of raw materials; more than 3,000 for mutual production, the most important being the creamery associations (2,700 with 200,000 members); and the associations for pressing grapes, with a membership of 10,000. The system of credit-associations created by Raiffeisen, though somewhat variable, depends in general on the payment by the member of a relatively small amount in cash (under $ 2.50 in almost half of the associations), and the assumption on his part of the obligation to pay further sums in case of necessity, such sums being either unlimited or else fixed by a maximum, or to furnish security to the creditors for the said amount. Of a total membership of 3,500,000 the obligation is unlimited for 1,750,000. Loans are made to the members on notes, and the safety of the transaction depends mostly on the personal knowledge the cashier has of the financial responsibility of the members. He is often a preacher or a teacher, and his position is usually an honorary one. Accordingly, all these associations are in small districts, being usually limited to a single village. Still, they are combined into larger unions to make their cash money more elastic, in that thereby the surplus of one association is used to fill the deficit of another. Such organization also makes possible the mutual inspection of books. Recently the Prussian government has formed a special depart[33]ment for credit-associations and has provided capital to be lent to such associations, at a low rate of interest, after an investigation of their financial responsibility has been made.

The Economic Structure. – The economic structure of agricultural Germany, with this mixture of self-reliance, co-operative societies, and state aid, forms an artificial and perhaps complicated system; but only such a system has made it possible for Germany to achieve such conspicuous success in the face of the manifest great disadvantage of the country, as compared with most other lands, in the matter of climate and soil, and in the irrational manner in which land has been cut up. What has been achieved has been the result of hard conscientious work, supported from the technical side by the agricultural academies and higher institutions of learning, by the agricultural schools (22), with courses of study extending over several years, by the winter schools for agriculture (128), and by the finishing schools (about 3,000). This splendid technical education, however, does not imply any particular business qualities. The German farmer of small, or even moderate, means cannot be chiefly a business man, like the American farmer; because for him there is no chance of speculative gains. On the other hand, the large landed proprietor does not want to be a business man, because he belongs to the privileged class: if his superior social position is no longer secured by law, as formerly, it is none the less a fact. This class has just begun to develop in America. In order to understand these facts and their bearing on the peculiar political conditions in Germany, it is necessary to take a glance at the social structure of the country population. While on the one hand England, with her large country estates, where landlord and renter are sharply distinguished [A (5 l)]from the farm-hand, is the typical land of aristocratic ownership, France on the other hand, with her great number of miniature farms, where landlord and farm-hand are one, is the typical land of democracy as regards the distribution of farm-lands.

Now, in this respect, Germany shows characteristic antitheses. Of the total number of individual farming industries in Germany 58 per cent have an area of less than two hectares, and only nine-twen[34]tieths per cent have more than 100 hectares. But these last cover almost one-fourth of the total area. While east of the River Elbe farms of 100 hectares each, or more, cover 44 per cent of the area, in the Rhine country they seldom cover five per cent. (On account of the lack of a uniform basis in the statistics, it is impossible to make any comparison with the corresponding conditions in America.) West and southwest Germany resemble France in the matter of agricultural holdings and social conditions. Farming-lands are cut up into fragments, which are usually further divided in succession by inheritance, and farms, as a rule, have a small extent; social inequalities within the country population are slight; and the distinction between the country and the town population is also slight. For the rest, the rural population is very dense, and agricultural products are of the most varied nature. On the other hand, east of the Elbe and the Saale large estates and large farming industries are the rule. Owners of manor estates, or “Rittergüter” (which are mostly separated from the village communities and administered by the lord of the manor) are engaged chiefly in raising grain and feeding cattle. Only about half of them belong to the nobility; but the important part they play in local political bodies in the east, and in the Prussian House of Lords, and, together with the Clericals, in the Prussian Diet (which is elected by the three-class system of voting), explains the domination of Prussia by this feudal class. They furnish the army its officers, as did once the planters in the southern states of the United States. Their views dominate officialdom and diplomacy. In the past they were indispensable to the Prussian state, because they provided military and civil administration at the least expense. Even till now it is this historical rôle that assures them their preponderating influence in the Prussian government. These large land-owners have dwelling-houses for their workmen, who, with their families, are under contract, usually for a year. In consideration for their work they receive: A house, with garden, and sometimes a strip of land; a part of the yield of grain, or a certain fixed allowance; also fire-wood, and the right to graze a cow on the pasture; and finally a small cash-wage. This class of laborers, which forms a mean between the small peasantry and the proletarians, begins recently to be pushed away by laborers from Russia and Galicia. These last are crowded into large sleeping-houses and are dismissed after the harvest. On account of the specialization in the [35]cultivation of sugar-beets, farming has come to be more and more a matter of a short season. The work is compressed into a few months; and it no longer pays to keep a large force of farm-hands the year round. Thus the workmen become proletarians, just as in the manufacturing industries. The powerful [A (5 r)]attraction of the cities and of the high wages paid in the industries, and also, in many cases, the prospect of becoming independent in some foreign country, make the strongest appeal to farm-hands on the large estates in east Prussia, just where the population is thinnest. Naturally, this has increased the price of farm-labor; and the effect upon smaller farmers has been to cause them to limit their farming in such a way as to be able to do all their own work and thus make themselves independent of the labor-market. The competition of foreign grain has had a similar effect on production. In seeking to make themselves independent of the grain-market farmers have cut down their production of grain to an amount not much in excess of their own needs. These conditions, and the fact of division of land in succession by inheritance, caused an increase in the number of small peasant holdings at the expense of the larger and medium-sized farms. In this way, in the east, the number of small Polish farmers has multiplied. Their mode of life is so simple that they require only the smallest area. On the other hand, the large landed proprietors have been driven over to the side of protection. They brought about the great change from liberalism to protection and conservatism in 1878; and without them a majority for protection would be impossible in the German Reichstag. In connection with the rapid growth of capital of the country the agrarian crisis also manifests itself in the increasing number of enfeoffments in trust. Such entailed estates cannot incur debt and cannot be sold outside of the family; and there is the further proviso that they must pass to a single heir, usually the eldest son. In Prussia these estates cover about one-sixteenth of the area of the state and are half woodland. An increasing part of them represent complexes of land that have been bought up by men of wealth, who, for securing some title of nobility, have entailed the land in this manner. It is the same development that has crowded out the old resident squire in England, who corresponded to the German “Junker,” and placed the landlord, a renter, in his [36]stead – a development that America will not escape. Such large monopolies of land make possible, in the form of a lease, the separation of ownership from management and secure an elasticity against crises that is impossible for a capitalist farming his own land, especially in a country where the population is increasing and land becoming more expensive. Such an owner has to expend all his capital in buying land, or perhaps in paying off the claims of other heirs, or in paying interest on such claims. Thus, the agricultural development of Germany seems to tend, on the one hand, toward a multiplication of the smallest peasant holdings, and, on the other hand, toward an increase in the number of large monopolistic holdings.

The present government, which is strongly under the influence of the agrarian and related interests, has in view a change in the right of inheritance, intending to decrease the portions of the younger heirs, to fix a legal limit to indebtedness, and to provide for the liquidation of such indebtedness with the co-operation of the state. The change of the rules concerning the valuation of real estates in cases of inheritance might be a useful provision; but [A (6 l)]it would be of no basal significance. If the attempt to limit indebtedness by law did not prove an economic impossibility, it would only increase the buying up of land by monopolists, especially as the formation of enfeoffments is at the same time to be made easier. This last measure is in open contradiction to the plan of inner colonisation, which Prussia especially has taken up in a large way. On the one hand, the government would like to increase the number of the country population, and on the other secure stability of ownership without servitude to debt, and at the same time make Germany independent of foreign countries in the matter of food-stuffs. But it must be recognized that a reconciliation of these three conflicting ideals is impossible. From the technical view-point of the maximum of production, especially of grain – for the conditions are essentially different for stock-farming – the only possible way to attain to this is by decreasing the country population, i.e., by doing away with small peasant husbandry entirely and extending large capitalistic farming. But the country population is greatest and most stable where ownership is least stable, namely, in west and [37]southwest Germany; because here where the custom of small holdings prevails and ownership is fluent, there is the best opportunity to secure a bit of ground. The watchword, that Germany shall eat only her own bread, means a sharpening of the present social antithesis in the country, and therefore, under existing conditions of labor, the denationalization of east Germany. The domination of capitalistic farming favors the cheapest farm-hands, i.e., the Poles, and means nomadism for the agricultural laboring class.

Problems. – The fact must not be lost sight of that, as a nation, Germany is surrounded by enemies and can maintain her position only by the military service of a maximum of strong and healthy men. The population is increasing rapidly; but so is the deteriorating influence of the large cities. What, then, should be the aim of the agrarian policy? Certainly not the greatest amount of agricultural products, but the greatest number of agricultural producers. The present high agrarian protective tariff, however, is exactly opposed to the interests of the small producer. The high tariff on grain accrues, in an increasing measure, to the advantage of the large capitalistic farmer. Certainly, so long as the period of land-robbing agriculture (“Raubbau”) continues in foreign countries, it is impossible to put agricultural products on the free-list. Since, however, under the tariff-programme formerly in force, there had not been any appreciable falling off either in the extent of farming or in intensity of methods of cultivation, it is clear that the rate was high enough to protect the German husbandman against the temporary effects of the opening up of foreign virgin soils; and it was not necessary at all to increase the tariff on agricultural products. However, a new agrarian tariff-schedule, providing for higher rates, was put through, – in violation of the interests of the great majority of the population.

Bibliography. – Blondel, ‘Etudes sur les populations rurales de l’Allemagne’ (1897); Brachelli, ‘Statistische Skizze des Deutschen Reichs’ (1892); Dawson, ‘German life in town and country’ (1901); ‘Jahrbücher für [38]Na[A (6 r)]tionalökonomie und Statistik’ (1905); ‘Deutsch-Nautischer Almanach. Illustrirtes Jahrbuch über Seeschiffahrt, Marine und Schiffbau’ (1905); Nauticus, ‘Jahrbuch für Deutschlands Seeinteressen’ (1900).