Page 62 - Changing Living Spaces

Žarko Lazarević

(Tomasevich 1955, 337). The abundance of labour also did not encourage
intensification of production. Growth in agricultural productivity was
too slow. This was not the optimal solution for agriculture, because live-
stock was its most profitable branch.

Profitability of Agriculture
As a relative term, agricultural overpopulation also depended on the
profitability of agricultural labour. In this context, we have the data on
the average profitability of farms of different sizes. The profitability data
are calculated per farm with the average structure of farm and forest.
The calculation does not consider the information on the profitability of
livestock production. The statistical data on cattle production show that
the number of cattle increases with farm size. On average, farms small-
er than five hectares owned two cattle per farm. Farms that were even
smaller typically owned one animal or not even that (Uratnik 1938, 61).
The data on average income per farm indicates unfavourable conditions.
The income of farms was modest. The differences between types of
farms were significant. It was only on farms of nearly ten hectares or more
that profitability began to increase, and its level becomes more meaning-
ful and realistic when compared to the wages of workers at that time. The
average annual wage of workers in the second half of the 1930s was about
9,000 dinars (Kresal 1995, 13). The figures are revealing in themselves and
give an indication of the depth, scope, and stratification of poverty in
the Slovenian countryside. We come even closer to a realistic assessment
of the circumstances of poverty if we also consider the average number
of family members. The estimated average size of peasant families was
slightly more than five members (Maister 1938, 94). Except for bare sur-
vival (and even that barely), the small farms did not ensure anything else.
This is also confirmed by other data. Given the cost of living, the agricul-
tural production of small farms (up to two hectares) was sufficient for
only one person, while farms between two and five hectares were suffi-
cient for 3.32 people on average. Only farms of ten hectares or more could
support more people living in an average rural family (Uratnik 1938, 61).
This shows very clearly that small farms (up to two hectares) were not
sufficient for even the basic existential needs of all family members. Even
at the average level, the statistics reflected reality. To meet the food needs
of their entire family, farmers had to look for additional land and labour.
In the category of farms up to one hectare, leased land accounted for 27
percent, while in the category between one and two hectares it was 17

60