To supplement prior discussion, it now seems likely that some conclusions of 
Fogel & Engerman will be 'supplanted' based on the most recent research:

http://www.uc3m.es/uc3m/dpto/HISEC/seminarios/documents/SpainJune2007.pdf 
(2007 ongoing)

This concerns _A New View of Antebellum Southern Productivity Growth_ by 
Alan L. Olmstead and Paul W. Rhode, June 2007, a working paper circulated to 
invite discussion and critical comment while research continues toward final 
conclusions and publication.
This research is supported by National Science Foundation Collaborative 
Research Grants, "Seeds and Slaves: Technological Change, Plantation 
Efficiency, and Southern Economic Development" SES-0550913 and SES-0551130.

'Conclusions' are on page 45 of the hyperlinked paper that, in part, address 
how cotton planters and others analyzed and cross-bred Mexican hybrid cotton 
seeds to result in 'greatly' increasing cotton harvests and efficiency 
factors, likely surpassing results of the reaper implementation on grain 
harvesting in the antebellum era (that accounted for up to 100% efficiency 
increases.)  Furthermore, that the total impact of the Mexican hybrids was 
likely extended even more from the very positive effects on cotton yields 
and quality (neither were improved by the reaper), and that the easier 
picking cotton varieties helped smooth out peak labor demands such that 
labor hours needed for the harvest more closely approximated those needed 
for non-harvest tasks. This led to quieting the often-heard comment during 
the early 1800's that Southern farmers planted more cotton than they could 
pick (via slave labor.)

Interesting that such 'new' knowledge is being 'harvested' from 19th century 
records...

Neil McDonald

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lyle E. Browning" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 2:33 PM
Subject: [VA-HIST] Agricultural productivity


> I've dug out figures that show that by 1860 it took 1 slave to tend 10 
> acres of most crops. Recognizing that coerced labor is what it is, are 
> there also figures on what subsistence farmers were able to do on  average 
> with their crops on a comparable basis.
>
> Did no-one in the ante-bellum US do studies on agricultural  productivity 
> for slave and free labor, possibly abolitionists? I've  been working on 
> agri-techno-changes and would like some form of  comparative basis to 
> flesh out the lectures.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Lyle

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html