home

Non-chernozem zone. Non-chernozem region of Russia

INTERNATIONAL INDEPENDENT

ENVIRONMENTAL AND POLITICAL UNIVERSITY

INTERNATIONAL INDEPENDENT UNIVERSITY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL & POLITICAL SCIENCES

BY SUBJECT:

RATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT

"PROBLEM OF RATIONAL USE OF NON-BLACK EARTH LANDS"

Completed by: 3rd year student

Specialty: SK service and tourism

Soprunova Julia Vyacheslavovna

Checked by: teacher

Shcherba Vladimir Afanasievich

Introduction

1. The composition of the non-chernozem zone.

2. Characteristics of the Non-Black Earth Region.

3. Problems of rational use of non-Chernozem land and ways to solve them.

Conclusion.

Introduction

Earth - universal natural resource necessary for many branches of human activity. For industry, construction, land transport, it serves as the ground on which production facilities, buildings, and structures are located.

Earth- a kind of resource. First, it cannot be replaced by other resources. Secondly, although land is a universal resource, each of its plots can be used most often for only one purpose - for arable land, haymaking, construction, etc. Thirdly, land resources can be considered exhaustible, since their area is limited by the size of the earth's land, the state, and a particular economy. But, having fertility, land resources (namely soil), with their proper use and agricultural technology, regular fertilization, soil protection and reclaimed measures, resume and even increase their productivity.

1. Composition of the non-chernozem zone

Non-chernozem, Non-chernozem zone- Agricultural and industrial region of the European part of Russia.

In total, the Non-Chernozem region includes 32 subjects of the federation, incl. 22 oblasts, 6 republics, 1 krai, 1 autonomous okrug and 2 federal cities. The area is 2411.2 thousand square meters. km

It was named after the predominant type of soil as opposed to Chernozem.

Includes four economic region:

Northern economic region

Northwestern economic region

Central economic region

Volga-Vyatka economic region,

as well as individual regions of Russia:

Kaliningrad region

Perm region

Sverdlovsk region

Udmurtia

northern region

Republic of Karelia

Komi Republic

Arhangelsk region

Nenets Autonomous Okrug

Vologda Region

Murmansk region

Northwestern region

Includes the following subjects of the Russian Federation:

Leningrad region

Novgorod region

Pskov region

St. Petersburg

central District

Includes the following subjects of the Russian Federation:

Bryansk region

Vladimir region

Ivanovo region

Kaluga region

Kostroma region

Moscow region

Oryol Region

Ryazan Oblast

Smolensk region

Tver region

Tula region

Yaroslavskaya oblast

Volgo-Vyatsky district

Includes the following subjects of the Russian Federation:

Mordovia

Kirov region

Nizhny Novgorod Region

The Non-Chernozem region is a huge territory stretching from the shores of the Arctic Ocean to the forest-steppe zone and from the Baltic Sea to Western Siberia. The Non-Chernozem region is named after the soil cover, which is dominated by podzolic soils.

Since ancient times, the Non-Chernozem region has played and is playing an important role in the history of Russia, in its economic and cultural development. Here, in the interfluve of the Oka and Volga, at the end of the 15th century, the Russian state arose, from here the population then settled throughout the vast country. For centuries, people have defended their freedom in this territory. The industry of Russia was born here.

In our time, the Non-Chernozem region has retained a paramount role in the political, economic and cultural life of the country. Large cities are located here - centers for the training of qualified personnel, the most important industrial bases, areas most developed by man, good hayfields and pastures for livestock, since the landscapes of the Non-Black Earth region are mostly favorable for life and economic activity person.

2. Characteristics of the Non-Black Earth Region

The Non-Chernozem region is an important agricultural region. Here is 1/5 of the area of agricultural land in Russia. Development Agriculture good moisture contributes here, the almost complete absence of drought. True, the soils here are poor in humus, but with proper reclamation they can produce good yields of rye, barley, flax, potatoes, vegetables, and forage grasses. But since the first half of the 1960s, there has been a decrease in the growth rate of agricultural products. The reasons for this lie in the adverse human impact on the landscapes of the Non-Black Earth Region, and in the social sphere. The outflow of the population of agricultural areas to the cities turned out to be very unfavorable. The rural population here has declined by an average of 40% in recent years. The reasons for this can be very different: increased industrial construction, more favorable living conditions in cities, poor development of the social sphere in the villages. As a result of the lack of workers, agricultural land was reduced, attention to anti-erosion work was weakened, bogging and overgrowing of fields began. This eventually led to a drop in the productivity of agricultural land and the lag of the agriculture of the area.

In order to solve the problems that have arisen, a resolution “On measures for the further development of the economy of the Non-Black Earth Region” was adopted. It involved the following measures: improving the living conditions of people, especially in the regions of the North;

improvement (reclamation - a set of measures to improve soils with the aim of a long-term increase in their fertility) of lands by draining and irrigating them, fertilizing, liming soils, effective erosion control, uprooting of tree and shrub vegetation, snow retention and regulation of snowmelt, enlargement of fields and improvement of their forms;

3. Problems of rational use of non-Chernozem land and ways to solve them

In the bowels of the Non-Chernozem region there are deposits of iron (KMA), stone (Pechersk basin) and brown (Podmoskovny basin) coal, apatite Kola Peninsula, table salts Lake Baskunchak. between the Volga and Ural mountains, as well as oil production in the north-east of the region. Most of the deposit is located in well-developed areas. This increases their value.

During the extraction of minerals, the lands are disturbed, their fertile layer is destroyed, and a new form of relief is created. With the mine method of mining, large areas are occupied by waste rock dumps. In the districts open development quarries are formed on the surface of the earth. Sometimes these are extensive pits with a depth of 100-200 m or more. There are many disturbed lands in the Moscow basin, in the areas of development of building materials and peat. Much attention is now being paid to restoring the value of these disturbed lands (their reclamation). In their place are reservoirs. They are returned to agricultural and forestry use. For densely populated areas, this is especially important.

The problem of the Non-Black Earth region is connected with the use of the natural resources of this region, primarily with the development of agriculture in it. The soils here are not as fertile as chernozems, however, soil and agro-climatic resources make it possible to grow rye and barley, flax and potatoes, vegetables and oats, and fodder grasses. Forest floodplain meadows are good hayfields and pastures for livestock. However, agricultural production is not enough here now.

For the further development of agriculture in the Non-Chernozem region, rational use and improvement (reclamation) of land, the construction of roads and the improvement of people's living conditions are necessary.

The main type of land reclamation here is the drainage of excessively moistened lands. Along with drainage, fertilization and liming of soils, in some places irrigation and soil erosion control, removal of stones and uprooting of tree and shrub vegetation, snow retention and regulation of snowmelt, enlargement of fields and improvement of their shape are required.

Conclusion

Land degradation has occurred throughout human history. Numerous studies have shown that in the history of agriculture alone, as a result of the development of erosion, secondary salinization, soil dehumification and other phenomena, humanity has lost more than 105 billion hectares, which significantly exceeds the entire world area of arable land. According to the calculations of soil scientists, about 8 million hectares are annually removed from agricultural use in the world due to their development by settlements, highways, mining and other objects.

Rational use of land: expansion of areas under oats and barley due to wheat, as more productive and suitable for fodder crops; rational use of land under crops of flax, potatoes, vegetables. However, the adopted program of transformations could not be implemented, since the economic crisis of the 1980s. profoundly affected the whole country. It is impossible to solve the problem of the Non-Black Earth Region in any one area. Only a complete recovery of the economy will help in this.

The problem of rational use of land resources, their protection from destruction and increase in soil fertility is one of the main tasks of scientific research. They involve a whole range of sciences - agrochemical, biological, chemical, economic. Geography also plays an important role as a complex science and its branch areas - soil geography, hydrology, geomorphology, climatology, agricultural geography, etc. Only as a result of complex studies can areas requiring reclaimed work be studied and identified, and their consequences predicted. influence on other components of natural complexes.

Bibliography

1. Rakovskaya E.M. Geography: the nature of Russia, a textbook for the 8th grade of educational institutions. M.: "Enlightenment", 2004

2. Abramov L.S. Fundamentals of constructive geography. M.: "Enlightenment", 1999

3. Dronov V.P., Rom V.Ya. Geography of Russia: population and economy, textbook for the 9th grade. M.: Bustard, 2002.

5. www.geography.kz

Books

The Tale of the Blue Flower and its Miraculous Transformations, Viktor Stepanchenko. The publicistic book-album is dedicated to flax, which has richest history. Flax is the national culture of the Russian people. The famous Dutch canvas originates in the current Russian ...
Disappearing village in Russia. Non-Black Earth Region in the 1960-1980s, L. N. Denisova. In 1907, the zemstvo doctor A.I. Shingarev published the sensational book The Endangered Village. The book is the result of a sanitary and economic study of two villages in the Voronezh district: Novo-Zivotinnoye ...

Village of the Russian Non-Black Earth Region. 1960-1980s

annotation

Keywords

Time scale - century

Bibliographic description:
Denisova L.N. Village of the Russian Non-Black Earth Region. 1960-1980s // Proceedings of the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 1997-1998 Issue. 2 / Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Russian History; resp. ed. A.N.Sakharov. M.: IRI RAN, 2000. S. 426-478.

Article text

L.N.Denisova

VILLAGE OF THE RUSSIAN NON-BLACK EARTH REGION. 1960-1980s

For Russia, the agrarian question has been the leading one throughout its centuries-old history. All major socio-economic transformations in the country depended on his decision; tragic pages in the history of the state were associated with him. The study of the problems of agrarian history is relevant for all periods of the country's development. Among the modern ones, agrarian policy has come to the fore, since the survival of the state is connected with it.

The historical path of the post-war village is difficult and contradictory. It was accompanied by economic ruin and desolation of the village. Rural life has long become unattractive. Political and economic campaigns for its reconstruction did not bring the expected results. The village was impoverished. Non-Black Earth region in force geographical location within the state and natural and climatic features during the XIX-XX centuries. turned out to be the most affected region in the history of Russia. It includes the Northern, Central, North-Western, Volga-Vyatka economic regions, up to 30 regions and national autonomies. The non-Chernozem region is primordially Russian lands, an area of traditionally Russian statehood and culture. This is an area of difficult natural and climatic conditions. From here, to a large extent, raw materials and human resources were drawn for all construction projects in the North, the Baltic Republics, Siberia and Far East, personnel for the extractive industries of the country's economy, the rise of virgin lands and the development of cities. Right here public policy brought dire consequences. The first boarded up houses, dying and dead villages appeared in the Non-Black Earth region. The loss of this region from Russian history is not only the loss of land, the abandonment of settlements and the transformation of the region into an abandoned virgin lands, but also the loss of national relics, Russian cultural heritage.

The beginning of the desolation of the Non-Black Earth Region, especially the North, dates back to the 19th century; in the pre-revolutionary period, this process had a noticeable character and was caused by the fact that Russia had the opportunity to develop the lands of the south and southeast. Wars, revolution, industrialization, collectivization - all these upheavals had a strong impact on the state of the economy and the size of the rural population. The redistribution of labor in favor of industry, the city devastated the countryside. The situation in the Non-Chernozem region escalated due to the development of virgin and fallow lands. Having mastered 45 million hectares of virgin lin, more than 13 million hectares at the same time (1954-1959) were withdrawn from circulation in the European part of the country. In the USSR as a whole, the pre-war level of grain production was reached by 1955, in the Non-Chernozem region by 1967.

Huge damage to the region was caused by the unjustified liquidation of the so-called unpromising villages. In many villages there is no working-age population left. Migration to the Non-Black Earth region was generated by the growing backwardness of the village in economic, social, and cultural terms.

Irrational farming, violation of the primordially established economic systems, land reclamation measures have brought the Non-Chernozem region to the brink of an ecological crisis. By the end of the XX century. the region acquires the status of Non-Chernozem Chernobyl.

The upheavals experienced by the village could not but affect the spiritual and moral foundations of its population. The destruction of the traditional way of life and orientation led to indifference, apathy not only to public life, but also to one's own destiny. Lost interest in the rural way of life. The departure of the population from places of traditional residence leads to desolation and loss of monuments of national culture.

Experienced by the Russian village again and again brings us back to the understanding of the path traveled.

The basis for the development of sectors of the national economy is the material and technical base, the power supply of the people working in it. For 1918-1987 620.2 billion rubles were allocated for agriculture, or 42 rubles each. per 1 hectare of sown area. The share of capital investment in agriculture in 1918-1949 amounted to less than 1% of national income. In subsequent years - less than 5%, in the 70-80s. - 5.4-7.2%. However, these capital investments were not aimed at improving the fertility of the land and technologies for growing crops: 40% of the appropriations were spent on the purchase of expensive and often low-quality machinery and equipment, up to 20% on water management construction and up to 10% on the construction and equipment of farms. and livestock complexes.

Since the 60s. the economy of collective farms was increasingly based on the use of the general state budget. Since 1971, a comprehensive planning of capital investments in the construction of industrial, residential, cultural and community and other facilities has begun. The possibilities of state lending, the use of long-term and short-term loans for special purposes were expanded. In the early 70s. Almost all collective farms switched to direct bank lending. For the 60-70s. long-term loans for capital investments of collective farms amounted to a huge amount - 42 billion rubles, they were supposed to be sent to the industrialization of labor, specialization and concentration of production. In practice, loans were used to pay off overdue payments, build unplanned facilities, make numerous payments not related to the direct activities of collective farms, and pay wages. The result was a large zakre-ditovannost farms. In some of them, debts significantly exceeded the value of fixed and circulating funds. The total credit debt of agricultural enterprises to the state amounted to by the end of the 80s. 230 billion rubles

In view of the difficult economic situation of collective farms and state farms, large sums of debt were periodically written off from them: in 1965 - 2 billion rubles, in 1975 - 3.5, in 1978 - 7.3, in 1982 - 9, 7 billion rubles The means allocated by the state were reduced. At the same time, farms did not receive them, they were not used for their intended purpose, they were confiscated for various organizations and societies. At the expense of these funds, clubs, libraries were built, regional centers were improved, contributions from numerous voluntary societies were paid; part of the buildings built by farms was donated to other organizations and institutions.

The economy of the Non-Black Earth Region developed in the context of the agrarian system of the country. Billions recorded by statistics during the 60-80s. accounted for a little more than 30% of Russia's investment in agriculture. Taking into account inflation, shortfalls in local funds, gratuitous transfer of some of them again to the state, there was a reduction in investment in agriculture of the Non-Black Earth Region. In 1989 alone, 40 million rubles were withdrawn from the Committee for the Non-Chernozem Region. Compared to the Baltic republics, material government costs in the region were 2, and compared to Belarus - 1.5 times less.

The village was waiting for modernly equipped complexes that could change the life of a collective farm or state farm, and, therefore, give people a stable, well-paid job. But every year, in all areas of the Non-Black Earth Region, construction plans did not correspond to the capabilities of construction organizations, the commissioning dates were postponed. In the 60s. the level of integrated mechanization in dairy farming was less than 10%, in the 70s. - 40%, in the 80s. - 67%, on pig farms, respectively: 25, 67, 76%, on poultry farms - 17, 73, 91%. Among the farms and complexes there were many where the equipment and mechanisms did not work completely or partially, mechanization remained only in the reports. Only a third of the cattle farms and half of the pig farms were transferred to a mechanized mode of operation. In animal husbandry in the 80s. up to 70% of workers were engaged in manual labor. Mostly they were women. Workers from the Put Ilyicha collective farm in the Kozelsky district of the Kaluga region wrote to the newspaper Selskaya Zhizn (1964): “We have no days off and holidays. It is very hard to work like that, because a person cannot work all year round and not even a single day of rest. The car is stopped for repairs, but our hands are not steel. We bring food ourselves, we milk it by hand. Our board does not have enough time to repair the drinkers in a year, we have to water the cows ourselves.

Mechanization slowly entered the working life. The financial backwardness of many farms, high prices for equipment and spare parts did not allow them to re-equip production in a short time.

During 1958-1960. equipment owned by MTS was sold to collective farms. The cost of acquiring it (over 32 billion rubles) was a heavy burden on the farms. Many collective farms have been paying off debt for decades. Subsequently, the state canceled these debts. The acquired equipment made it possible to almost completely mechanize the rise of fallows, plowing, sowing and harvesting grain, sowing sunflower, sugar beet, fiber flax.

The technical equipment of agriculture determines the level of development of the industry. Up to 40% of the economy's funds were spent on its purchase. However, by the end of the 1980s The village experienced a shortage of technical means. 40% of Russia's tractor fleet, a fifth of grain harvesters, a third of forage harvesters, three quarters of potato harvesters, and all flax harvesters were concentrated in the Nechernozem region. For all technical means, the normative need was not satisfied. In the 80s. the need of non-Black Earth farms in tractors was satisfied by 80%, grain harvesters - by two-thirds, potato harvesters - by four-fifths, plows - by two-thirds, beet harvesters - by 60%. Prices for industrial products for the village remained high, the sale of agricultural products did not make it possible to replenish the fleet of cars. Only for 1965-1985. prices for means of production and other types of industrial products for agriculture rose 2-5 times, and purchase prices for agricultural products handed over to the state - about 2 times. By raising prices, state-owned enterprises covered their costs at the expense of collective and state farms. The total amount of unjustified appreciation of the main types of industrial means of production and production and technical services for the country's agriculture for 1984-1985. amounted to more than 18 billion rubles.

The collective farms and state farms of the Non-Chernozem Region needed to increase and update the fleet of machines. For the 60-80s. the level of mechanization rose slowly. By the end of the 80s. only half of the potato area was harvested by machines, vegetable planting was mechanized by four-fifths, and harvesting by a quarter. At the end of the 70s. only a third of the employees of collective farms and state farms worked with the help of machines and mechanisms, by the end of the 80s. - less than half. The rest worked by hand. (For comparison: in the USA, there were three times more tractors per 1,000 hectares of arable land and 2.4 times more grain harvesters; the total energy capacity per 1 average annual worker of the Non-Black Earth Region was one third of this indicator in the USA). The insufficiency of capital investments directed by the state to agriculture did not allow maintaining a high technical level of farms, which led to a decrease in the growth rate of agricultural products. In most Western countries, economic support for farmers reached 40-50% of the cost of marketable agricultural products, and in Japan and Finland - 80%. In Germany, rural subsidies accounted for 12.7% of gross domestic product, in Denmark - 17.7%, Great Britain - 27.2%, and in Russia - only 4.8%. The Russian non-chernozem village bore the main burden of material costs. To overcome the backlog without state support turned out to be unrealistic. The agricultural problem worsened.

The collective farms and state farms of the Non-Chernozem region were much worse provided with personnel than the farms of other regions of the republic. If the average for the farms of Russia in the 70s. there were 133 tractor drivers per 100 tractors, then in the Non-Chernozem zone - 116. Less than one machine operator per tractor had a third of the collective farms and state farms of the region, and in the Arkhangelsk, Kalinin, Kostroma regions 60-70% of farms. For 1971-1973 the number of tractor drivers in the Non-Chernozem region increased only by 9 thousand people, and 247 thousand were trained. As a result, equipment was idle in 40% of farms. The largest number of such collective farms and state farms was in the Kalinin region (80%), Smolensk (74), Novgorod (70), Pskov (70), Tula (60), Kaluga (50). Many farms were not provided with personnel to work even in one shift. The fact of incomplete use of funds due to a shortage of personnel, especially qualified ones, was stated. At the same time, their number was reduced. In the early 80s. the number of regions and autonomies of the Non-Black Earth region that did not have mechanics for each tractor reached 15; in the Ryazan region, there were 85 tractor drivers per 100 tractors, Kalinin - 83, Tula - 81, Smolensk and Pskov - 80 each. annually left collective farms and state farms. The prospect of a renewed life was so far away that the villagers preferred any job in another region.

Vocational schools, which have become secondary since 1969, annually produced thousands of machine operators of a wide profile. In the 70-80s. The vocational schools of Russia trained 700-800 thousand tractor drivers, drivers, combine operators per year. Only a few of them connected their lives with the village. In fact, medium-sized vocational schools carried out the training of specialists of mass professions for the city. The shortage of personnel in agricultural production remained high. However, they could be interchanged, since the level of mechanization remained low, and training was short-lived. The most difficult problem is the training of specialists. Higher education institutions and technical schools of an agricultural profile prepared them by the thousands. But there were few people who wanted to work in the countryside. Only 60% of engineers and technicians had higher and secondary specialized education, the rest of the positions were occupied by practitioners. The middle link was also mainly headed by workers who had no special education. The prestige of agricultural professions remained low. Surveys of rural residents showed that the majority did not want their children to choose the profession of parents. “We have been poking around in the earth and manure all our lives, even if you have a cultural life”; “All our life in the village we trampled mud, knowing nothing but work, so at least you live like a human being” (from the statements of the parents of the Kirov region). In the countryside, urban registration was highly valued, believing that it serves as a means to improve the conditions of study, work, and life.

The state shifted the problems of rural life to collective farms and state farms. In difficult conditions of production, some farms have achieved high rates. These are collective farms headed by P.A. Malinina, V.A. Starodubtsev, M.G. Vagin, G.I. Sanin, A.V. Gorshkov and others. A considerable number of farms maintained an acceptable standard of work and life for their workers. But the majority remained unprofitable with low production and cultural indicators, with virtually no qualified personnel. They lived with the prospect of a renewal of life. But she moved away.

The Russian Non-Black Earth Region is one of the main regions that produced agricultural products for the republic. At the disposal of 5 thousand collective farms and 5 thousand state farms was 1/5 of the agricultural land in Russia. Ameliorative work was carried out to improve and expand them. The pace was slow, the use of new lands was ineffective. By the mid 80s. less than 1/10 of agricultural land was drained in the Non-Chernozemie (in the Baltic states, more than 1/2, in Belarus - 1/4). A significant part of the newly put into circulation land was not used: in the Non-Black Earth region up to 40%. At the same time, huge areas of previously used land fell out of circulation and were overgrown with shrubs. At the same time, unreasonably many lands, including arable land, were allocated for industrial construction. The widespread land reclamation measures proved disastrous.

The improvement of the fertility of agricultural land was facilitated by the balanced introduction of organic and mineral fertilizers. In the Non-Chernozem region, more than 60% of arable soils were classified as low-phosphorus lands, about 40% - to the same category in terms of potassium content. Over 32 million hectares of soils in the region (80%) needed liming. There was a general lack of fertilizers, lime material, and machinery. The situation was aggravated by the abuse of pesticides and herbicides. From the village of Bylino, Zagorsk District, Moscow Region, in 1965, a letter arrived to Selskaya Zhizn: “Recently, pesticides were pollinated from an airplane. The air was all poisoned, there was nothing to breathe. All the plants in the gardens of the residents have died, vegetables and potatoes are drying up. Adjacent pastures are poisoned, cattle are forbidden to drive. Reservoirs are also poisoned. Peas on an area of 20 hectares fell and withered, 5 hectares of beets in the village of Sadovnikovo died. Now it's time to harvest hay and we are afraid that this feed will poison the cattle in the winter. Instead of intensifying production, a number of regions found themselves on the verge of an economic crisis. Most of the lands of the Non-Chernozem Region did not exceed 40 on a 100-point soil fertility system. This meant that the earth was on the verge of complete exhaustion.

After 1965, agricultural land was reduced and amounted to by the end of the 80s. about 45 million hectares, or 20% of the agricultural area of Russia. In the structure of agricultural land, arable land accounted for more than 2/3, 1/3 fell on natural fodder lands - pastures and hayfields. The leading place in the structure of sown areas belonged to grain crops - up to 50%, the second place was occupied by fodder crops - 40%, then areas under potatoes - 7% and fiber flax - 2%; cultivated hemp and sugar beets. Vegetables occupied less than 1% of the sown area, a small part was given over to perennial fruit and berry plantations. Among the cereals, rye, wheat, barley, oats and buckwheat prevailed. Seed production was low. Less than 80% of the grain area was sown with seeds of high quality. Productivity of agricultural crops throughout the 60-80s. remained low; by the end of the 80s. for cereals it was 13 centners per hectare, for fiber flax it was unchanged - 2.7, for potatoes - it decreased to 116 centners per hectare. In the 60-80s. in the Non-Black Earth region, a third of the livestock of cattle, pigs, up to 10% of sheep, goats was concentrated. The number of cows was fixed at 7 million, sheep and goats decreased by half (5.7 million), pigs slightly increased, amounting to 11 million heads. Livestock productivity remained low. By the end of the 80s. milk yield per cow amounted to less than 3 thousand kg, wool sheared - 2.5 kg per sheep. Only the egg-laying-bone of laying hens increased: in the 60-80s. 1.7 times and amounted to 248 pieces. Low performance were associated with poor care, an insufficient amount of complete feed for livestock. Farms were provided with them by 50-80%. A third of the herd of cows are barren. There were frequent cases of death of animals. Statistics recorded that in the second half of the 80s. on average, 1.9 million heads of cattle, 4.5 million pigs, and 5.2 million sheep and goats died in Russia per year.

The country's growing needs for agricultural products were supposed to be met through inter-farm cooperation, concentration and specialization of production in large farms. This course has been carried out with particular perseverance since 1976. Industrial production methods based on integrated mechanization, automation and scientific organization labor gave both high capital productivity and efficiency. Good performance was noted at the Shchapovo, Kuznetsovsky, Voronovo, Ramenskoye livestock complexes of the Moscow Region, them. 50th Anniversary of the USSR Gorkovskaya, "New World" and "Pashsky" Leningradskaya, "Sotnitsynsky" Ryazanskaya, "Livensky" and "Mtsensk" Orlovskaya, "Lyubomirsky" Vologda region. These are the few and best farms. But they did not determine the level of animal husbandry in the Nechernozem region. Given the scattered and small number of settlements, the lack of communications, and most importantly, the financial poverty of collective farms and state farms, the idea of a large industrial complex turned out to be unfeasible. For the vast majority of farms, it was more profitable to create small, well-equipped farms that could be maintained at the proper financial and human level. But the desire to quickly turn the region into a specialized livestock center led to the liquidation of small farms, the long-term construction of large ones, and, in general, to a decrease in returns from this industry. In the presence of 1/5 of the agricultural land in Russia during the 60-80s. in the Non-Chernozem region, about a third of the gross output of crop and livestock production was produced. One sixth of grain crops, half of potatoes, up to 40% of vegetables, almost all flax products were grown here. The non-Black Earth region provided a third of the meat, up to 40% of the milk and eggs produced in Russia. It accounted for 15% of gross agricultural output former USSR: 13% grain, half flax fiber, one third potatoes, one fifth vegetables, 16% meat, one fifth milk and one fourth eggs. The share of this region in the total capacity of the country's food industry enterprises was: for the production of meat - 33%, whole milk products - 48, cheese - 33, alcohol from food raw materials - 40, starch - 66%. The Russian Non-Chernozem Region remained a large agricultural region, one of the main agricultural producers for the country. However, the low productivity of the fields and the low productivity of livestock hampered the fulfillment of the planned tasks of the state. In the region, annual non-fulfillment of state procurement plans was recorded. When they were formed, the real situation in the region was not taken into account. State purchases in all categories of farms for the 60-80s. slightly increased for grain (up to 3.5 million tons), vegetables (up to 2.6 million tons), livestock products (milk - up to 3.7 million tons, livestock, poultry - up to 3.7 million tons, eggs - tsam - up to 16 billion pieces), and almost halved in wool (5.3 thousand tons) and flax products (119 thousand tons); potato purchases remained unchanged (4.5 million tons). The state purchased 11% of grain, 94% of flax fiber, 64% of potatoes, 36% of vegetables, 32% of livestock and poultry, 39% of milk, 47% of eggs, 5% of wool in the Non-Black Earth Region.

Private farms played a significant role in rural life. They provided the peasant family with basic food, often sold part of the products, replenishing the family budget. The private farms of the villagers took part in state purchases of agricultural products. However, the attack on a personal farmstead led to a decrease in the area of personal plots, a reduction in the number of livestock and poultry, often up to the complete elimination of subsidiary farming. Only for 1958-1963. the size of agricultural land used by citizens decreased by 20% (600 thousand hectares). The lack of fodder, the possibility of haymaking and grazing, high taxes led to the fact that up to half of the families in the village did not keep a cow in the courtyard, and a third did not have any livestock at all. Many families even refused to breed poultry. This meant that a third of the rural population had to be provided with food through the public and public sectors. The country's food problem worsened. In the Non-Black Earth region by the mid-60s. private farms provided 46% of the gross meat production, 41% of milk, 61% of eggs, and 66% of wool.

In the subsequent period, the personal farmstead of rural residents continued to play a significant role in agricultural production and state procurement.

The public sector did not fully meet the needs of the country's population in food. An important source of solving the food problem remained the personal subsidiary farming. In 1990, it produced about 30% of meat, milk, eggs, vegetables, 65% of potatoes, 54% of fruits and berries, and 26% of wool. 10 million hectares of land were used in personal subsidiary farming, and it gave about 25% of the gross output and more than 10% of the marketable output of the agricultural sector of the economy. In addition, in the country, 12 million families of workers and employees had collective gardens with an area of more than 800 thousand hectares and 6.7 million families had collective gardens with an area of 500 thousand hectares.

Of course, the production of food products, the development of personal subsidiary farming is primarily a rural problem. For townspeople, work on a garden plot was predominantly social and recreational in nature and, to a lesser extent, was an additional source of income. For the villagers, private farming occupied a leading place in their life, including as a source of additional income.

In 1990, the income of families of collective farmers from personal farming in the country as a whole amounted to 1,808 rubles. per year, or 25% of the total annual family income (in some regions up to 40%). The same figure for retired collective farmers is 41% of their annual income, while for workers and employees in cities it is 3.1%. Financial situation peasants was largely connected with the personal farmstead. The villagers not only provided themselves with food, but also sold part of the products to state, cooperative organizations, on the collective farm market.

In 1990, the collective farms produced 3 times more potatoes than they used for personal consumption, vegetables and melons - by 20%, fruits and berries - by 44%, milk - by 10%. The production of eggs fully provided for personal consumption, and the production of meat - by 73%.

Possessing only 2% of agricultural land, and, as a rule, of the worst quality, without receiving state capital investments, limits on material resources, land reclamation, subsidiary plots in 1990 gave 25% of the total gross agricultural output.

On a personal farmstead, labor, almost completely devoid of mechanization, was 2 times more productive than on collective farms and state farms. The productivity of a hectare of personal land was 20 times higher than in state farms, 13 times higher than in collective farms. These are indicators of a hopeless economy, behind which is the hard work of the whole family. Such productivity of exclusively manual labor, achieved at the expense of time and the full dedication of the forces of the whole family, cannot fundamentally solve the food problem. At the same time, we will take into account that all this “productivity” is achieved after a working day in the public economy. What is the true price of such a crop?!

According to 1993 data, the individual sector as a whole had 20% of arable land and produced up to 80% potatoes, up to 55% vegetables, up to 36% meat, and up to 31% milk. As the well-known agrarian scientist V.P. Danilov writes, analyzing the progress of the reforms of the 90s, “the spread of small-scale individual production is in fact the result - and evidence! - the destruction of large-scale commodity production and the general crisis in agriculture, rolling it back - to the family-consumer level. The agrarian reform is designed to ensure not a return to petty and the smallest subsistence production, but a movement forward - to modern forms large-scale production, capable of dynamic development in the constantly changing production and technical conditions of the late XX - early - XXI century ".

The procurement system had a negative impact on the development of production. It took shape in the 1930s. and with minor changes continued to function until the end of the 80s. Plans for the production and procurement of products were brought to the attention of agricultural enterprises, often without taking into account their real capabilities, which for many farms were obviously unfeasible. The state, by all means available to it, forced the economy to fulfill the plans for procurement as much as possible. Collective farms and state farms often gave up their crops almost completely. But after completing the preparations, in order to save the livestock, to have seed funds, already in the autumn they turned to the state for “help” and bought their own products at exorbitant prices.

Attempts were made to overcome the existing procurement system. In 1958, the system of mandatory deliveries was replaced by a single form of state procurement - purchases of agricultural products at fixed prices. This opened up the possibility of new relations between collective farms and the state. However, during the years of the seven-year plan, this idea was not realized. The March 1965 Plenum of the Central Committee of the Party decided to establish firm plans for the purchase of agricultural products for the five-year period. But in practice, these plans were overgrown with additional tasks that were arbitrarily assigned to farms. The decision of the May 1982 Plenum of the Central Committee of the Party on the transition to a single five-year procurement plan remained a paper directive. The practice of collecting bills remained the same, and prices for agricultural products were also low. The cost of production of basic products on the collective farms grew at a much faster pace than the purchase prices for them. In 1980, the products sold to the state by collective farmers brought a loss: milk - 9%, cattle - 13%, pigs - 20%, poultry - 14%, wool - 11%. This was one of the reasons for the economic decline of agricultural enterprises. At the end of the 80s. a fifth of the collective farms and state farms of the Non-Chernozem region were unprofitable. Their debt to the state amounted to 335 million rubles. Every third farm brought losses of almost 200 thousand rubles. in year .

The shortage of agricultural products was aggravated by its huge losses all the way from the field to the consumer: the loss of grain was 20%, potatoes and vegetables - about 40%, meat - up to 1 million tons. It was officially recognized that up to a third of the grown crop various reasons did not reach the consumer.

During the 60-80s. most of the farms of the Non-Black Earth Region had low production indicators. Life got worse. The trees were empty. At the end of the 50s. 180 thousand villages and villages were scattered throughout the Non-Chernozem. More than 70% of them numbered up to 100 inhabitants. From 100 to 500 people lived in a quarter of the settlements. and about 4% of the villages had more than 500 inhabitants. With the small number and dispersion of villages, another trend was recorded - the emergence of a special category of rural settlements that did not have or practically did not have an able-bodied population. Demographers argued that in the future the vast majority of such settlements would be among the settlements deprived of able-bodied population.

One of the ways to achieve agrarian well-being was seen in the consolidation of collective farms and state farms. This process proceeded most intensively in 1957-1960, when up to 10,000 previously enlarged collective farms disappeared annually. As a result, the average size of crops of many farms increased by 3 or more times. Giant unmanaged collective farms and state farms were created, numbering 120 villages each and covering up to 30 thousand hectares of crops. In the conditions of the Non-Black Earth Region, this further exacerbated agricultural problems.

An analysis of the activities of state farms, carried out in the mid-60s, led to the conclusion that “ Feedback between the intensity and size of farms ... is so constant and ubiquitous that it acts as a certain regularity. It will manifest itself as long as the farms are not able, according to their material capabilities, to conduct production equally intensively on the entire land area. They did not have such opportunities in those years. However, there are also more radical points of view. V.P. Popov writes: “The real reason for the enlargement of small collective farms, which entailed the resettlement of “unpromising” villages and their desolation, was the desire of the authorities to organize another radical break in the village way of life, destroy the remnants of the rural hostel, unify the village and its people, to force them to continue to dutifully work on collective farms, to centralize the management of the peasants even more ... "and as a result of this policy," the unification of the "poor" with the "rich" led to intra-village discord, increased social tension , did not increase the efficiency of collective farm production. Unable to resist the evil will of the “reformers”, the peasants fled even more densely from the village. According to V.P. Popov’s calculations, “the absolute figure of those who fled the countryside in 1960-1964 about 7 million people.” .

Simultaneously with the consolidation of farms, the transformation of collective farms into state farms was carried out. It started in the second half of the 1950s. First of all, economically weak farms underwent reorganization. For the 50-70s. in Russia over 17,000 collective farms were converted into state farms. There were areas (for example, Leningrad), where agricultural production was only state farm. The reorganization of a significant number of collective farms into state farms and the consolidation of farms led to the fact that the jobs of most enterprises were scattered throughout the entire production array. Thus, "objectively" the question arose of the construction of large central estates and the "unpromising" of the overwhelming number of villages and villages. To solve the problems, the state policy of rationalization of resettlement began to be vigorously pursued: the resettlement of residents from the so-called unpromising villages to large settlements. By 1970, the total number of villages and hamlets decreased from 180,000 to 142,000; Orientation towards large urban-type settlements was in conflict with the conditions of traditional agricultural production, which, with large spaces and an underdeveloped transport network, required dispersal, approaching the earth. As a result, over 40% of the villages have almost completely lost their production functions. The state saw one of the reasons for the economic difficulties in the impossibility of organizing the production process due to the scattered villages on the territory of one economy, with their small number. In the subsequent period, the policy of liquidating small villages became even more active. "A crime against the peasantry" called Vasily Belov the fight against the so-called unpromising villages. “In our Vologda region,” he wrote in Pravda, “several thousand villages ceased to exist because of their lack of prospects. And in the North-West - tens of thousands. Let's think about it: out of 140 thousand non-black earth villages, it was supposed to leave only 29 thousand.

Government Decree of 1974 on the Non-Chernozem Region for 1976-1980. 170 thousand families from small villages and villages were assigned to the settlement. In Russia, only about 43 thousand rural settlements were identified as promising and scheduled for further development.

At the end of the 70s. in the Non-Chernozem region, a third of the administrative regions consisted of 200-500 or more settlements. In the Vologda, Yaroslavl and Kalinin regions, on average, there were more than 300 of them per region. In the Pskov region, more than half of the regions had more than 500 villages and villages.

The non-chernozem village remained the smallest in Russia (122 people against 240 on average in the republic). The share of the smallest settlements (up to 50 inhabitants) was about 60% of rural settlements. In Vologda, Novgorod, Kirov, Yaroslavl regions the share of these settlements exceeded 70% of their number. In the future, this process continued.

Due to limited resources, a radical transformation of promising villages was possible in 15-20 years or more. The resettlement throughout the Non-Chernozem region could drag on for at least 50 years. Consciousness negative consequences led to the abandonment of the division of settlements into promising and unpromising and from the planning of resettlement: in 1980, such a decision was made by Gosgrazhdanstroy.

Only in the 60s and 70s. about one third of the rural settlements of the Non-Chernozem region disappeared, which amounted to about 60 thousand villages, the area of arable land since the 30s. decreased by 10%, and hayfields, pastures - almost 2 times. In the Pskov region, there were 18 thousand houses abandoned by their inhabitants. Under them, more than 15 thousand hectares of fertile land, including garden land, were empty. In the Kalinin region in 1988 there were 14 thousand empty houses. For the 70-80s. the rural population decreased here from 834 thousand people to 483 thousand, or almost half. For 15 years, the area of agricultural land has decreased by 16%. In the Novgorod region, a strict pattern was in effect for a century: a decrease in the population by 1% always led to a loss of 1.1% of land.

In the second half of the 80s. in rural areas of Russia, 490 thousand residential buildings were empty, the total area of uncultivated land with them reached 200 thousand hectares. To restore the balance of land use for 1958-1983. in the Moscow region alone, 25,000 hectares of new lands were allocated for recreation, of which almost 10,000 hectares are agricultural lands.

The townspeople vigorously began to acquire village houses. Officially, this was recognized as one of the ways to preserve the housing stock of the rural hinterland.

Three types of settlements were formed in the Non-Chernozem region. These are the central settlements of farms, agro-industrial complexes and associations. They accounted for less than 10% of all populated areas and concentrated more than a third of the population. These settlements were connected by a network of well-maintained roads with city and regional centers. Living conditions there were the most favorable. Next - the points of concentration of individual objects of production and service, working in conjunction with the centers of farms. They were treated in villages of departments and brigades. In the absence of well-maintained paved roads connecting them with the city and the central estate, living conditions there were very unfavorable. The third type is points without production facilities with a partial or complete absence of service establishments. Here the living conditions were the most unfavorable, but a fifth of the villagers lived here. In areas with a fractional network of populated areas, there were more than half of such settlements. More than 85% of the villagers in this region in 1990 lived in villages with less than 200 people. Of these, more than half lived in settlements with fewer than 50 inhabitants. One fifth of the villagers lived in villages and villages numbering from 51 to 100 people. and only 15% - from 101 to 200 inhabitants.

The Russian Non-Black Earth Region is characterized by a high degree of urbanization. In the 70s. the rural population accounted for 25% of the population of the region (in the country - 40%, Russia - 33%), and the share of the agricultural population directly employed in agricultural work was relatively small: in the North-West region - 30 %, Central - 38, Volga-Vyatka - 50%. The urban population increased annually by 750 thousand people. and amounted to 90% in a number of areas.

For the 60-80s. the rural population has decreased by a third. In 1989, 64 million people lived in the Non-Chernozem region, 40% of the population of Russia, 32% of the villagers of the republic. 80% of the population are city dwellers. More than two-thirds of the new townspeople in the recent past are villagers. The urbanization of the Non-Black Earth Region opened up opportunities for villagers to find employment in cities, while remaining villagers. The number of pendulum migrants turned out to be significant. A fixed working day, higher wages and, most importantly, non-agricultural work were preferable. As a rule, commuting migrants worked in industry (up to 70%) and were employed in less skilled labor than city dwellers. Over 30% worked as laborers, junior service personnel, 14% as highly skilled workers in industry, 13% as workers in forestries and timber industry enterprises, and 10% as employees in the non-productive sector. Pendulum migration made it possible to partially satisfy the needs of the city in unskilled and low-skilled labor without the territorial expansion of the city.

The rural population of the Non-Chernozem region for several decades more intensively than in other areas gave labor to industrial centers. For the 60-70s. The villages of the region accounted for about 30% of the migration growth of the country's cities, while the share of the Non-Chernozem region in the rural population did not exceed 15%.

In the 60-70s. rural areas of Russia fully provided the migration growth of their own cities and, in addition, a fifth of the migration growth of the urban population in other republics. The intensive outflow from the villages created a shortage of labor in the agriculture of the Non-Chernozem region. Here, a correlation was found between the intensity of rural migration and such indicators as the share of the agricultural population in the entire rural population, the labor load per collective farmer per year. On the whole, regions with a significant agricultural population and high labor loads (Novgorod, Smolensk, Vologda, etc.) were also distinguished by a higher outflow of the population.

Demographers recorded: from the beginning of the 70s. Russia's population does not reproduce itself. The forecast came true. In the 70s - 80s. the rural population of the Non-Black Earth region decreased by 1.5%, the number of people employed in agricultural production - by 1.3-2.5%, and the number of women working in collective farms and state farms - by 5%.

In the 80s. there is a tendency to reduce the absolute and relative size of the migration of the rural population of the Non-Chernozem region. For 1981-85 the number of villagers decreased by 844 thousand, while in 1966-70. by 2 million 162 thousand. But this does not indicate positive changes in the countryside, but that as a result of the previous large-scale outflow of people of mobile ages and the sharp aging of the village, there was no one to migrate in many areas and farms. For the 80s. the number of the rural population of Russia decreased by 8%, the Central Chernozem region - by 18%, the Volga-Vyatka region - by 17%, the Central region - by 15%, the Volga region - by 12%. At the beginning of 1991, there were 38.7 million rural residents in Russia. The population growth in the republic was 0.6% annually - 12th place in the country. In a number of regions of Russia, the number of deaths exceeded the number of births. Moreover, if in 1987 a natural population decline was observed only in the Pskov, Kalinin and Tula regions, then by 1990 a third of the population of the republic, living in 21 territories, belonged to this category. These are all districts of the North-Western, Central and Central Black Earth regions (except for the Bryansk and Belgorod regions) and the Gorky region. In rural areas of most territories, natural decline has been recorded since the mid-70s, and in the Pskov and Kalinin regions - a quarter of a century. Over the past 30 years after the All-Union Census of 1959, the rural population of the country has decreased by 10%, and of the Non-Chernozem region by 42%. In many areas of the Non-Chernozem Strip, the number of inhabitants has halved or more. In the Kirov region, by 1990, 40% of the population of 1959 remained, in Pskov - 45, in Kostroma and Yaroslavl - 46 each, in Kalinin and Smolensk - 47 each, in Gorky - 49, Novgorod - 50 %. The most able-bodied and educated part of the population rushed to the cities. Cities attracted people. The city was and remains not only the center of industry, the consumer of labor, but it is the center of civilization. This is a cultural magnet, where you can get an education, join cultural values. The city is a source of progress and replenishment is necessary for its development. But this whole process is contradictory. On the one hand, the development of cities is a progressive process, but, on the other hand, it leads to the devastation of the village, leads to the marginalization of part of society, the disappearance of villages, rural image life.

The increased outflow of labor from agriculture in the non-chernozem zone, compared to other regions of Russia, is caused, on the one hand, by the proximity of cities and industrial enterprises and, on the other, by a higher level of low-paid manual labor and poor housing and living conditions . According to surveys conducted in the Non-Chernozem region, dissatisfaction with work remained in the first place among the reasons for leaving the village: manual work, lack of work in the specialty, poor working conditions, irregular working hours. The need to raise the level of the culture of the place of residence has noticeably increased. A tense unregulated working day at the height of the agricultural season and a poorly developed household service hindered cultural development. This became one of the main motives for migration. The villager, determined to leave the village, was pushed out not only by reasons related to work, but also by the whole system of rural life, the way of life characteristic of the village. First of all, those who moved to the city had a technical specialty - a driver, a tractor driver, a builder (among them, migration was 20-30%) and could adapt relatively quickly to industrial work. As a rule, people with a low level of education rarely moved to the city. The reduction in the rural population was mainly due to young people, especially those aged 20-29. The mobility of young people is five times greater than that of others age groups. Migrants aged 16-29 accounted for up to 70% of all those who left, while among those who arrived in the village they were less than 30%. Over 60% of those who left the village are young women.

The predominant outflow of the most educated and skilled part of the labor force hampered the economic and social development villages. Special surveys of migrants from the countryside showed an extremely high proportion among them of persons who had a secondary education and machine operators. A situation has arisen when the training of machine operators in the countryside has become, to some extent, a form of preparation for resettlement in the city. The youth did not want to put up with the fact that they are "village", that "it will do for us, which is worse, if only we plug the holes." (From the statements of schoolchildren of the Kostroma region) and left their native places. The resettlement addresses were known: construction sites of the national economy, the North, Siberia, the Baltic states. Many sought prosperity in the cities. For the majority of collective farms and state farms, personnel remained one of the main issues. Only 5% of households were fully provided with them.

The state was interested in fixing the cadres of agricultural workers, the solution was found simple and cruel: the collective farmers were deprived of their passports. According to the current exemplary Charter of the agricultural artel of 1935, membership in the collective farm had to be formalized by submitting an application, followed by a decision to admit members of the artel at the general meeting. In practice, the children of collective farmers were automatically entered into the lists of collective farmers and were deprived of their passports.

This was the case until the mid 1970s. A government decree of 1974 introduced, in 1976, passports of a citizen of the USSR of a new type, which were to be issued (exchanged) to all citizens who had reached the age of 16 during 1976-1981.

The Russian Non-Black Earth region has endured all social and economic transformations. State dictatorship and the inability of collective farms and state farms to resist it undermined the economic foundations of the village.

The redistribution of labor in favor of industry, the city devastated the countryside. The destruction of the primordially established system of settlement led to the disappearance of thousands of villages, the loss of traditional forms of management and way of life.

The problems of social and cultural reconstruction of the countryside were mainly solved by the state at the expense of the collective farms. They also paid the members of their artel. All social payments (pensions, allowances, etc.) were also made from the collective farm budget.

Until the end of the 50s. wages in most collective farms in Russia were conducted on workdays. The best farms paid wages to collective farmers. In 1959, less than 7% of the collective farms of the Non-Chernozem region switched to this system (in Russia - 8%). The wages of collective farmers amounted to 28 rubles, which turned out to be half the wages of state farm workers and three times those of industrial workers. Salaries were paid irregularly. Since 1966, the collective farms began to switch to guaranteed wages. During the transition to new conditions, there were often cases of violation of the conditions for its application. This was expressed in the fact that the wage fund grew faster than the gross output. In addition, the growth of wages occurred with a decrease in its productivity. The introduction of guaranteed wages improved economic and financial position collective farmers. By the end of the 80s. the collective farmer received 221 rubles, the worker of the state farm - 263 rubles. It was less than the industrial workers earned, nevertheless, with income from a personal farmstead, such a salary made it possible to live at a good level. But such high salaries in practice could be confirmed only by some farms of the Non-Chernozem region. The average statistical indicators closed the problems of rural life of collective farms and state farms of the region, which for the most part belonged to the category of low-profit and unprofitable enterprises.

Pumping out economic indicators from collective farms and state farms, the state did not pay pensions to collective farmers, as to all other citizens of the country. This issue was shifted to the collective farms. Most of them were not able to substantially support their veterans, and often could not support at all. Collective farmer ZA Velikanova from the Moscow region wrote in 1962 to Rural Life: “I am 60 years old, of which I worked on a collective farm for 32 years. In 1960, due to poor health, I retired. The collective farm allocated a pension of 3 rubles. 50 kop. My husband died at the front in 1943. For my work, I was awarded the medal “For Valiant Labor” . In 1963, only a quarter of the elderly collective farmers and disabled people in the country received pensions. Only since 1965, collective farmers have been equated with the rest of the country's citizens. But at the same time, the retirement age for them was increased by 5 years. The minimum pension was 12 rubles. per month. By 1980, the amount of monthly pension payments was increased to 28 rubles.

For many years, a significant part of the income created in agriculture was directed to solving national problems. The total costs for social and household needs in the city significantly exceeded similar costs in the countryside. In terms of the level of development of the material base of social infrastructure, the village lagged noticeably behind urban settlements. Based on one rural resident in the 70-80s. capital investments in the development of institutions and enterprises of the social sphere in the countryside were almost 3 times less than in the city. The situation was complicated by the fact that the volume of investments in the non-productive sphere of the village was mastered by 60-70%.

The best farms of the Non-Black Earth Region financed the modern construction of a complex of cultural and community buildings, including a cultural center, shops, a hospital, a clinic, a canteen, a household, a post office, a school, and a boarding school. This is how the central estates of economically strong farms looked like: the collective farms "Bolshevik" of the Vladimir region, "Mir" of the Torzhok district of the Kalinin region, "The path to communism" of the Dzerzhinsky and "Russia" of the Kozelsk districts of the Kaluga region, "Bolshevik" of the Palekh district of Ivanovskaya, state farm "Frunze" of the Suzdal district of the Vladimir region, many farms of the Moscow region and the Leningrad region, which were in a privileged position. The economy of most farms in the Non-Chernozem Region did not provide opportunities for spending on cultural and household needs. In the 60s. deductions from collective farms for these purposes amounted to less than 1% of their cash income.

heavy economic situation a significant number of collective farms and state farms deprived them of the opportunity to decide social problems, engage in the construction of housing, objects of culture and life. The financial instability of farms did not allow housing construction to be carried out in sufficient volumes. The volume of construction in the Non-Chernozem region in various regions and autonomies differed sharply. If in the Leningrad region an average of 26 apartments per state farm were built per year, then in Novgorod region - 12, Bryansk, Ryazan regions and Chuvashia - 7 each, Kaluga region - 5 per farm. Using state loans, villagers in the 60s. built a fifth of the housing, in the 70-80s. - the seventh. Residents of collective farms in the 60s. rebuilt 40% of housing in the 70s. - third, in the 80s. - quarter. Manor houses accounted for 80% of the newly commissioned living space. The improvement of housing lagged far behind the urban one. The rural population, as a rule, lived in their own unfurnished houses, built and repaired at the expense of their savings. In the private sector, domestic amenities were often not provided. By the end of the 80s. only half of the housing stock in the countryside of Russia was provided with running water, a third - with central heating. A sixth part was provided with hot water supply. Gas was carried out in 80% of houses. In many villages there was no radio broadcasting network. But the biggest problem was the lack of light. A letter from residents of the Krasnoye Znamya collective farm, Kalyazinsky District, Kalinin Region, sent in 1974 to Selskaya Zhizn: “We bought televisions, receivers, refrigerators, and washing machines. But these smart appliances are idle because of the lack of electricity. Collective farmers sit in the evenings with a torch, because not even kerosene lamps.

In the mid 60s. in the collective farms of the Pskov region, 70% of the rural population did not have electric lighting and used kerosene lamps. In 1970, about 12% of the villages did not have electricity. Electrification covered in subsequent years all more sat down, but also in the late 80s. there were villages without electricity. Collective farmers counted on the improvement of life in their villages, the government planned to improve only promising ones from the state point of view.

Telephone communication slowly entered the life of the village. The backlog from the city was 6 times. By the end of the 80s. only every third family in Russia in the city and the eighth in the countryside had telephones. In the villages, a third of trade, medical institutions, schools, enterprises of consumer and cultural services to the population were not equipped with telephones.

Off-road remained an ongoing problem. By the mid 70s. less than half of the central estates of collective farms and state farms of the Non-Chernozem region were connected by roads with regional centers. More than 60 thousand villages and villages were located at a distance of over 6 km from the bus stop. By the end of the 80s. in the Non-Chernozem region per 1 thousand square meters. m accounted for only 48 km of paved roads, which was 6 times less than in Lithuania and 11 - in Estonia. Approximately one third of the central estates were cut off from the district centers. It was found that with bad roads, transport costs in the cost of agricultural products reached 40-47%. However, the poor condition of the roads had a negative impact not only on the economy. It limited the possibilities of improving the culture of everyday life, the development of the achievements of socio-cultural progress by the villagers, had a negative impact on the psychology of people, because they felt cut off from the world.

Rural residents overcame considerable difficulties in order to purchase industrial and food products. There were no shops in most villages, and the assortment of goods was extremely narrow in those that functioned. For shopping went to the district and regional centers. Families of collective farmers purchased up to 40% of goods in city stores. At the same time, each rural family annually spent about 160 hours on trips to the city for goods. Urban living standards gradually came to the villages. By the end of the 80s. the majority of rural families purchased televisions, three-quarters - radios, over 60% - refrigerators, washing machines, 25% - vacuum cleaners. Although this was a noticeable improvement in life, nevertheless, these figures were 1.5-2 times lower than the city level. Domestic services provided in the countryside were not great. A significant part of the villagers remained outside such services and was also forced to turn to the city. From 30 to 65% of the region's villagers rated household services, recreational conditions, trade, public catering, housing and roads as unsatisfactory.

The consumer attitude of the state towards the countryside gave rise to special principles of policy in the field of culture. It considered the production indicators of collective farms and state farms to be the main criterion in the distribution of material and financial benefits. Therefore, the minimum state budget allocated for the cultural needs of the village was distributed mainly among economically strong farms. Others gradually fell apart and slipped into industrial and cultural poverty. In the conditions of the Non-Black Earth Region, only a small number of villages, usually large ones, had a general education school, a house of culture or a club, a library on their territory. The presence of cultural institutions served as a stimulus for life in the village. Other villages long years living in cultural isolation.

The rural general education school performs the most important social functions. It has a direct impact on the state of the economy, largely determining the future of the village. 60-70s have made significant progress in the education system. It was a period of implementation of universal secondary education throughout the country. This was especially important for the village. The policy of concentration of the population in large settlements led to the liquidation of a large number of schools. At the same time, secondary schools were built on the central estates, and the composition of teachers improved. Secondary schools began to predominate. For the 60-80s. the number of rural schools in Russia has more than halved. There were many households in the Nechernozemye that did not even have an elementary school on their territory. There were not enough school boarding schools for all students, delivery was carried out to a limited extent. From the Kostroma region in 1967, parents wrote to Rural Life: “We live in the village of Krasnaya Zvezda, and the children go to school more than 4 kilometers away in Lebedyanka. in winter very coldy, blizzards, more than once we had to look for wandering children. Sometimes the frost reached 32°C.

Of the 49 thousand villages of the Non-Chernozem region, more than 10 thousand children went to school every day more than 3 km away. By the end of the 80s. 48 thousand schools worked in the countryside. A significant part of them was recognized as emergency. In the Non-Chernozem region - up to 2 thousand. The number of rural schoolchildren decreased over the 60-80s. doubled to less than 6 million.

The main problem of the rural school of the Non-Chernozem region was the small number of pupils, which was associated with the peculiarities of settlement in the region. By the end of the 70s. half of the primary schools had fewer than 16 students. There were schools where they taught 2-3 students. Every fifth eight-year school had no more than 100 students. A significant proportion of secondary schools were also classified in this category. Schools appeared where there were no students for all classes of education: eight-year schools with 5-6 classes of education and ten-year schools, where there were 7-8 classes. The level of training in some schools was low. There was no teaching in separate subjects. This impeded further education, hindered progress on the social ladder, and in many respects predetermined the future fate of young people.

The social program provided for the existence of preschool institutions for children. However, in the 60s. only 11% of collective farms opened kindergartens and nurseries. These were small seasonal institutions for the period of sowing and harvesting. Stationary kindergartens were practically non-existent. Women took their children with them to work. A letter from a worker of the Kalinin collective farm in the Kirov region, sent in 1969 to the newspaper Selskaya Zhizn: “It has been 25 years since we have had children's institutions. Women you-need to take the guys with you to work or lock them up at home. So they grow like weeds in the backyard, it comes down to tragedies. The son of a combine operator, left unattended, drowned in a pond, the son of a combine operator D. lit a fire, and only by a lucky chance did not happen a disaster. The chairman ordered that the premises of the nursery be given to a veterinary clinic, care for artiodactyls, apparently, is higher than for the children of collective farmers.

The club remained the center of attraction for the villagers. In the village, he is actually the only representative of cultural institutions. Along with the school, the club creates a minimum of cultural amenities for living in the countryside. The need for cultural institutions was great. Only 60% of rural settlements had clubs at their place or nearby. Rural residents actively participated in the work of the club. The best creative teams participated in reviews, competitions and festivals. Most of the villagers remained outside the cultural service, relying on their opportunities and needs for leisure activities. Lines from a letter to the newspaper Selskaya Zhizn from residents of the Progress collective farm in the Roslavl district of the Smolensk region (1968): “Young people usually do not stay long. They run from the dark collective farm life. Four clubs are closed. Young people gather somewhere together: they smoke, drink, play “fool” ”.

Village life goes on for all to see. High morality was supported by the church. The number of religious institutions was sharply reduced. Many churches were used as clubs, warehouses, cinemas, workshops. Others were savagely destroyed. In 1953, there were 15 thousand Orthodox churches in the country, in 1986 - about 7 thousand. The number of parishioners was declining, mostly they were elderly people. In the 80s. the revival of the church led to an increase in believers and attending places of worship. The survey data showed that 40-50% of the Russians surveyed considered themselves believers (more than 90% of them identified themselves as members of the Russian Orthodox Church). At the end of 1989, about 60% of Russians were baptized. But only 10% of parishioners attended church regularly. Young people showed great interest in religion. Many saw in the formation of faith, the strengthening of religiosity, the origins of the revival of national self-consciousness.

Heavy non-mechanized labor without days off and vacations adversely affected the health of rural residents. The absence of social insurance forced collective farmers to work in any state of health. The lack of medical facilities and doctors exacerbated the problem.

Only in 1970 was a unified system of insurance for collective farmers introduced on the collective farms from the funds of all the same collective farms. Farms contributed 2.4% of the wage fund.

For all indicators of medical care countryside far behind the city. In rural hospitals, one hospital bed accounted for 4 square meters. m instead of the prescribed 7. Out of 18 thousand rural polyclinics, 14 thousand were located in the so-called adapted premises, out of 4 thousand district hospitals, 2.5 thousand were deprived hot water, and in 700 it was not even cold. The main medical institution in the village was the feldsher-obstetrical first-aid post. By the end of the 80s. less than half of the villages had them. The provision of doctors in the countryside was twice as low as the urban level. Mostly in rural medical institutions, nurses worked.

Difficult working conditions, unsettled life, unsatisfactory organization of medical care had a negative impact on the health of the villagers. The situation was exacerbated by excessive alcohol consumption. The average life expectancy was fixed at 68-69 years, which is 6-7 years lower than in the developed countries of Europe and 11 years in Japan. Most regions of the Non-Chernozem region exceeded the average Russian mortality rate. The Pskov, Novgorod, Ryazan, Kalinin and Tula regions had the highest level (13-14 deaths per 1 thousand population). Note that these are the regions with the oldest population. However, this is not the only reason. The mortality rate of able-bodied men in the countryside is higher than in the city by 11%, women - by 17%. Male villagers more often died from injuries and accidents, as a rule, alcohol intoxication served as a prerequisite, women - from diseases of the circulatory system.

The Russian Non-Black Earth Region has undergone all the socio-economic reformations of the country. His contribution to the economy was great, but the potential was not inexhaustible. The economy of the region suffered enormous damage during the Great Patriotic War. The restoration and development of industry required the involvement of hundreds of thousands of peasants from the countryside. Significant resources for the uplift of virgin lands were also drawn from the Non-Black Earth region. Contrary to the objective natural and climatic conditions of the region, where management was traditionally carried out by small villages, a policy of concentration of production and population in large villages, on the central estates of collective farms and state farms was carried out everywhere. The destruction of the primordially established system of settlement led to the extinction of Russian non-chernozem villages. The price proportions of the exchange of agricultural products for industrial goods were not in favor of the agricultural sector. But the main thing is the state diktat and the complete helplessness of the collective farms and state farms to resist it. The state acted as a manager of agricultural production, without coordination with the farms, carrying out various organizational and economic activities. Financial help turned out to be small. Kolkhozes and state farms were burdened with huge plans, and they were connected with the state with long-term, short-term and other obligations. They constantly paid for equipment, then for compound feed, then for seeds. The state sometimes wrote off part of the debt, because it was impossible to get it from the farms. It was some kind of compensation for the colossal work of people tied to the land. Fate determined them to be peasants and until the mid-70s. they were deprived of their passports.

Attaching the collective farmers to the land and dooming them to hard work, the state cared primarily about the state welfare. It drew food and raw materials from the agricultural sector, depriving it of patronage and support.

The advanced farms of the Non-Black Earth Region led a prosperous life. They occupied a priority position in the agrarian policy of the state. Investments, equipment, personnel were sent here in the first place and in the required quantities. The elite status of the best collective farms and state farms also gave high agricultural performance. The miserable existence of the rest remained the result of the same policy. The state, for objective and subjective reasons, supported only the elite. Rural residents did not work for the benefit of their particular economy. They always worked on the whole for the state, which pumped food out of the farms semi-free of charge and free of charge. It so happened in state policy that the village was obliged to support the city, almost always to the detriment of itself. Many years of hard work with the sole purpose of getting out of poverty and poverty did not justify itself. Most of the farms of the Non-Chernozem Region during the 60-80s had low production indicators. The level of development of social infrastructure lagged noticeably behind the urban one. The trees were empty.

The past decades of economic experimentation have brought many areas of the Non-Black Earth region to a critical point. A stingy rural landscape that has become a symbol of a dying village of non-chernozem Russia: rickety houses with boarded up windows, abandoned wells, overgrown with bushes of arable land. The abandoned house of the Russian side is the fate of most of the villages of the Non-Black Earth region.

Great hopes were pinned on the agrarian reforms launched in December 1991. The attack on the collective-farm-state-farm system led to its liquidation. One of the successes of the agrarian reform in Russia, primarily in the Non-Black Earth region, is the promotion of migration to the countryside of the population that has not lost interest in working on the land. But surveys of sociologists have registered that almost two-thirds of the first individual farms created by townspeople did not aim at permanent residence in the countryside and independent agricultural work.

The fate of the Non-Chernozem region is in the hands, first of all, of the rural inhabitants of the region themselves. But during the 60 years of absolute dominance of large-scale production, several generations of its workers have changed. First of all, ignorance at the professional level of the full process of the cycle of agricultural work, and not the fear of dispossession or unwillingness to work, repelled former collective farmers and state farm workers from switching to individual farming.

By the autumn of 1993, the total number of individual farms, called farms, in Russia exceeded 260 thousand. Their land area is 11 million hectares, the crop area is about 6 million hectares. The average size of such a farm was 42 hectares of all land, 22 hectares of crops. Their share in production was determined at 2-3%.

The freeing up of prices for goods and services not only did not eliminate, but even more strengthened the non-equivalence of exchange between town and country. For 1992-1993 Purchasing prices for meat increased 45 times, for milk - 63 times. For gasoline - 324 times, for the K-700 tractor - 828 times, for the T-4 tractor - 1344 times.

Destructive for the agriculture of Russia was the non-payment by the state of the delivered agricultural products. As of December 10, 1993, the state's debt to the peasants was 1 trillion 800 million rubles.

All forms of agriculture became unprofitable. A catastrophic decline in production began. Compared to 1990, Russia in 1993 produced 40% of grain, 45% of vegetable oil, 50% of meat products, and 53% of dairy products.

As a result of the destruction of the collective-farm-state-farm system, agricultural production indicators crept down. Food abundance due to new forms of management on earth did not come. Most of the former collective farmers did not see real prospects for a better life. There was less and less hope for a prosperous rural activity. Real restructuring at home convinced the villagers of haste, thoughtlessness in solving agrarian problems, new difficulties, sometimes insoluble, and their own uselessness.

Only the desire to feel like the owner of your land is not enough for this land to generate income. Serious material support is needed for the new economic system. For the arrangement of one farm, according to the estimates of Belarusian economists, 10 million rubles were required. (in 1992 prices). Most of the peasants who chose the farming path did not have such funds at their disposal.

The state provided loans to farmers. However, the interest on “soft” loans was initially set at 8%, then at 20%, then at 213%. As a result, over half of the farmers went bankrupt in 1993, and another 60 thousand in 1995. About 10 million hectares of agricultural land in Russia were neglected, not cultivated and overgrown with weeds and shrubs. It is unlikely that there will be any doubt that in the coming years Russia will not be able to provide itself with food in accordance with its needs.

For many years, the village only gave, receiving practically nothing in return. The time must come to repay the debts.

In the preface to the well-known book by A.I. dilapidated forms of state life in the presence of such endangered villages?” . Today the problem of the survival of the countryside in Russia is just as relevant.

Footnotes of the original text

DISCUSSION OF THE REPORT

N.A. Ivnitsky:

The report gives a good description of the situation in the 1960s and 1980s. in the village.

But have you tried to compare the situation in the village of the Non-Chernozem region during the years of stagnation with the present?

L.N.Denisova:

The situation has worsened. State dictatorship continues even now, only with greater cruelty. Collective farms are practically prohibited. For the Non-Black Earth region, farming is actually a disaster. Under the most difficult natural and climatic conditions, scattered villages, lack of finance and technology, when the tractor was divided into 8-10 families, the start of the farming movement failed. Of course, there are successful farmers, but they are few. This path as a general one was not thought out.

Perhaps, in the Kuban or in other areas, farming will develop, but as practice has shown, not in the Vologda Oblast. In the Non-Chernozem region, this turned out to be unpromising.

Therefore, the inhabitants themselves, who at first fell into euphoria about the fact that they would have land, they would not need to work every day on the collective farm, etc., gradually came to the conclusion that they should return to the collective farms. This movement, for example, in the Vologda region is gaining momentum.

A.K.Sokolov:

This period is marked as the period of the implementation of the policy of eliminating the differences between the city and the countryside. These differences are very peculiar, but, nevertheless, have any successes been achieved or not?

L.N.Denisova:

Certainly, progress has been made. Collective farmers received passports, social guarantees, pensions. From this point of view, the village was to a certain extent equated with the city. But the city moved forward, and the village pulled itself up, and the differences changed, but did not disappear.

A.K.Sokolov:

I got the impression that just at that time the type of village with city standards was being established, but in a worse version.

L.N.Denisova:

This mainly concerns the advanced farms of the Non-Chernozem region.

L.N. Nezhinsky:

I have two questions. What we today conditionally (or not conditionally) call an attempt of Kosygin's reforms in the mid-60s, and you know that both documents and memories are gradually appearing, and their number is increasing, were there any intentions to change radically approaches, including in agrarian and social policy in the Non-Black Earth region.

Second question. What is the general demographic situation at the beginning of the period you are studying, that is, by the end of the 50s - the beginning of the 60s, and how did the 80s end in this respect? are there comparable numbers?

L.N.Denisova:

Kosygin's reforms were implemented in the countryside. They were planned and carried out, but were quickly curtailed. Solid five-year plans overgrown additional tasks, and the system returned to its place again.

As for the decline in the population, in the Non-Chernozem region it decreased over the 60-80s. half, and in some areas - by 60-65%.

O.M.Verbiikaya:

When you talk about the fact that the population was declining in the countryside, and the reason for this was the most difficult working conditions and the general way of life as such, one gets the impression that this is a purely Soviet phenomenon, that this is the result of an unfair, ill-conceived, unbalanced policy of the Soviet state and the party . But it is known that this tendency has a worldwide, global character. Now the whole of Western society is an industrial society, and the number of people who are engaged in agricultural labor is negligible compared to the total population. Is this somehow connected with global trends, or do you think that this is the result of the pernicious policy of the country's leadership?

L.N.Denisova:

The reduction of the rural population as a progressive process is characteristic of industrialized countries, to which Russia and especially the Non-Black Earth region in the 60-80s. cannot be attributed. In the Non-Chernozem region, the number of villagers decreased not due to the introduction of technology, new technologies, but because of the impossibility and unwillingness to remain in the village, i.e. agricultural policy of the state.

E.A. Osokina:

The problem of long-term development is very important: what is suitable and what is not suitable for the development of agriculture: farming or collective farms. It is necessary to compare not the development of this region within the framework of the Soviet period, i.e. collective farm and post-collective farm, but with the development of regions in pre-revolutionary times. My Ph.D. thesis is devoted to the development of industrial regions at the beginning of the 20th century. I did not take the Vologda province, but took Yaroslavl, Kostroma, Vladimir. There were no collective farms, but agriculture developed, especially the meat and dairy industry. Have you tried to compare not with the Soviet period, but with the pre-revolutionary period, and on the basis of this, predict what should take root in the Non-Black Earth region, farming or collective farms?

It seems to me that farming has not taken root in the Non-Chernozem region, not because it does not fit this region, but because the conditions were not created: neither legal nor technical.

L.N.Denisova:

I made such comparisons on the example of the Vologda province. Here the farming movement, as evidenced by surveys conducted in the 1980s and 1990s, proved to be unviable. The reason is not only that the legal and technical base has not been created in the Vologda region, but also that there is no base created by nature itself in order to work individually.

I.E. Zelenin:

You took a rather long period: the 60s, 70s, 80s. You can outline some stages of development, for example, agrarian policy, the economy. There was Khrushchev's period, and Brezhnev's, and Gorbachev's. And a little earlier the question arose with the food program. During this period, a common line could be drawn, but nevertheless these stages can somehow differ, in particular, politically.

L.N.Denisova:

For the Non-Chernozem region, a special stage was the middle of the 70s, when the mass resettlement of villages began, in fact, the liquidation of the Non-Chernozem region.

I.E. Zelenin:

Those. resettlement had a negative value?

L.N.Denisova:

I didn't talk about negative value. With a common sense for some villages and regions, for the entire Non-Chernozem region, this was a devastating hurricane. At the same time, individual collective farms, state farms and settlements were landscaped.

I.E. Zelenin:

And if it is regarded from the point of view of production?

D.N.Denisova:

From the point of view of production, one can distinguish here the mid-60s, the eighth five-year plan, show certain successes, but in general this was the only period in the development of the history of this long-suffering region.

I.P. Ostapenko:

What percentage of collective farms were electrified in the late 1980s?

Second question. Do you consider demographic changes during this period, in particular, the sex composition of the rural population during this period.

And the last question. Was the illiteracy of the rural population eliminated during the period under study?

D.N.Denisova:

Official statistics say that by the end of the 80s. the country's collective farms and state farms were completely electrified, but judging by the closed reports in the former TsGANKh, and especially by the letters of the peasants to Rural Life, throughout the entire period there was a certain number of villages where there was no electricity. But there is a nuance here: the power line was laid, but either the pole fell, or the voltage was weak, or the light bulbs were not delivered.

Regarding literacy. Universal secondary education is an indisputable achievement of Soviet power. For the village, this was a colossal leap. In the 60-70s. great efforts were made to implement at first an incomplete (eight-year) and then a complete secondary education. There were costs in the implementation of the school reform, but the number of undergraduates and those who dropped out of school without a matriculation certificate did not exceed 2-3%.

I.P. Ostapenko:

What is the criterion for literacy?

L.N.Denisova:

Secondary education. In 1977, the USSR switched to universal secondary education. But the level of education in the countryside was often low.

As for the gender composition, the non-Chernozem village was predominantly female.

V.P. Danilov:

We listened to a very interesting report that gives a rather specific, detailed description of the village of the Non-Chernozem region for about 20-30 years, and the questions that were asked about the report indicate that the specific picture that was recreated in the report is undoubtedly is of general interest. But in order to understand the processes that took place, it would be useful to consider this period in a somewhat broader chronological framework.

The process of the outflow of the rural population of the Non-Black Earth region of Russia is really connected with the worldwide civilizational process of the decline of the rural population and the growth of the urban population at its expense. But as far as the Non-Black Earth region of Russia is concerned, this process is greatly intensified by the outflow of the population from the North to the South, which began long before the revolution. It probably took place as early as the 17th - early 19th centuries, and would have been more intense if it were not for serfdom, which kept not only landlord peasants, but also state peasants tied to the land. And the state peasants in the Non-Black Earth region prevailed. And only since the 80s. of the last century, with the abolition of the temporarily obligated state for landlord peasants (for state peasants, these same norms were extended with some delay), an active outflow of the population from the North and from the Non-Black Earth Region of Russia to the South began. We record the intensive formation of a foreign population on the Don, in the Kuban, in other areas of the South-East, precisely from the 80s. 19th century Moreover, we know where they come from: from the community from the Tver province, from the Kaluga province. Still less from Vologda and Arkhangelsk. For them, this wave will come during the years of the civil war.

During the years of the civil war, in 1918-1919. the flow of population from the Non-Black Earth region to the south, to the Don and the Kuban took such proportions that it can already be called a massive outflow of the population. And, taking advantage of the special conditions of the civil war, complete freedom, “wherever I want, I go there, especially since I have weapons in my hands,” the population began to leave these places. Here it is necessary to take into account the environmental conditions of the Non-Chernozem region. His characteristic lack of land played a role.

This is very important processes which continued in the future. And by the way, they continue to this day. Post-Soviet times have come. What is characteristic of the Nechernozem region? This is primarily the desolation of villages. It would seem that the propagandists of the post-Soviet reforms tried to attract, in particular, people from other, completely northern regions, to the Vologda region and other northern regions of the Russian Non-Black Earth region, but nevertheless people left. If we talk about the mass outflow of the population from the northern regions, then they bypass the Vologda region and go further to the South, and not only because the climatic conditions in the South are more comfortable for life, but also because the working conditions in the northern regions of Russia, of course , are very heavy. This must be taken into account. Why didn't the farming movement in the North get any noticeable growth at all? (A.K.Sokolov: And the "Arkhangelsk peasant"?). And this is from the field of the most unscrupulous propaganda. This kind of "men" can be organized and imprisoned in any region, by creating certain conditions, just as they were created for the "Arkhangelsk peasant" at the expense of the state farm, on whose territory this economy was created. All attempts, when this "Arkhangelsk peasant" was being propagandized, to talk about what supposedly helps to successfully manage the economy, did not penetrate our press. (N.A. Ivnitsky: And how many such “muzhiks” were ...).

And one more important circumstance connected with the general direction of the agricultural development of the Non-Chernozem Region. E.A. Osokina said that in pre-revolutionary Russia, in the Non-Black Earth region, a trend of transition to intensive animal husbandry began to stand out. This is very important point in understanding what has happened in the Russian Non-Black Earth region for about a century. This trend in the development of especially butter and dairy animal husbandry in the Non-Chernozem region led to the development of a project in the Danish version of the development of agriculture in the Non-Chernozem zone of Russia. This project in Soviet times was adopted by the People's Commissariat of Agriculture in 1923-1924, and until 1927 (of course, the time is very short) the foundations were laid in order to specialize the direction of the agrarian agricultural development of the region, and this direction , of course, assumed the creation of a broad agricultural market within the country, respectively specializing areas, for example, grain production for grain production, etc. This is a very progressive direction. In the future, if Russia survives, if it can overcome the trials that have now befallen it, then it will inevitably have to return to this variant of the agrarian development of the Non-Black Earth region, in the center of which is the butter and milk direction.

But it turned out that collectivization was underway, and, starting from the end of the 1920s, the Stalinist leadership made a universal demand that each region feed itself with bread and provide grain production. This deeply erroneous trend affected the fate of agriculture in the 1960s and 1980s. No wonder N.S. Khrushchev, who continued this direction, tried to plant corn crops in the Arkhangelsk province.

All this must be shown in a broader historical perspective.

N.A. Ivniikiy:

The report is interesting. When it is finalized, it is necessary to strengthen the display positive aspects life of the Non-Chernozem region in the 60-80s, especially in comparison with the subsequent period.

Secondly, it is necessary to emphasize more strongly how the legal status of the peasant changed, starting with the receipt of passports, to speak about the material side. Give a comparison with the state of production that exists now.

If we used to say that 20 or 23% of capital investments, appropriations in agriculture is not enough, these are appropriations on a residual basis, now it is good to have 2-3%, and we consider this an achievement.

P.N. Zyryanov:

The question has already arisen of how to connect the report with the history of the same region, but in an earlier period, approximately from the 19th century. Let's not go very far, let's connect this with the peasant reform of 1861. Indeed, for 155 years this region has undergone very dramatic turns in its fate.

First of all, after the reform of 1861, he found himself in a very disadvantageous position in comparison with the Chernozem region. There were very large cuts made. But the land of the peasant still fed, and here, since quitrent, and not corvee, played the main role, the land was taxed above its profitability, that is, the exploitation of the allotment brought a loss, which was covered by outsiders or, as they said then, outgoing pro-thoughts. Therefore, the peasant tried to push every extra allotment away from himself, and until about the 60s. there was a reduction in sown areas - swamping, overgrowing with shrubs, forests, etc. But at the same time there was a demographic explosion of the population. This was connected both with the abolition of serfdom and with the introduction of zemstvos, when the elementary principles of hygiene and sanitation were introduced. Then the child mortality dropped sharply. In the Chernozem region, catastrophic consequences began to brew, because the land allotment was getting smaller and smaller, while in the Non-Chernozem region it was quite the opposite. Here a peasant, when he went to the city to work, took with him two or three grown-up sons, and in the city he earned more. Therefore, in the Non-Black Earth region, the situation began to improve. With the money that the peasant brought from the city, he began to improve his economy.

It was already said that grass sowing began to be introduced, the peasants switched to multi-field crop rotations. This process started in the 1990s. of the last century, and when it ended, I cannot say. Such a process went on throughout the entire period before the outbreak of the First World War, it went on during the First World War, and continued until collectivization itself. Moreover, it should be noted that in the process of intensifying agriculture in the Non-Chernozem region, he relied on the community, and not on farms.

V.P. Danilov:

AT Soviet time the production part of the plan was adopted. Not a form of organization, cut or community, but the development of butter and dairy farming as the main direction of agricultural production in the Non-Chernozem region. This plan, adopted in 1924, when Alexei Petrovich Smirnov was People's Commissar for Agriculture, was called the "Danish Plan".

P.N. Zyryanov:

He also assumed some semblance of cuts. There were such cases that those who did not want to switch to multifield will stand out for cuts.

L.N. Nezhinsky:

It is necessary to pay attention not only to the production orientation of the development of our agriculture, but also to something else: to social forms - the community or the cut.

And here a comparison with the pre-revolutionary period was appropriate.

P.N. Zyryanov:

There is no such plan for the reconstruction of the countryside that would suit all regions, all countries. And these farms, cuts, or, as they say now, farming, are not very suitable for the Non-Chernozem. Here, in one form or another, the unification of collective efforts is required.

L.N. Nezhinsky:

A very interesting, fundamental, thoughtful report was heard. You can agree with the interpretation of certain issues, or you can disagree, but on the whole, a problem was posed that goes far beyond the topic “History of the Russian Non-Black Earth Region”. I think everyone will agree with this.

What is the Russian Non-Black Earth Region? This is two and a half thousand kilometers from west to east and at least one and a half thousand kilometers from north to south, i.e. it is almost like all or more than all of Western Europe put together. The problems and questions raised in the report go far beyond the purely agrarian problem of this region.

In fact, one of the main themes of the history of Russia, the history of Soviet society, was touched upon to one degree or another, because the conclusions and observations of the speaker largely influence the history of the development of our country in these years, and not only in these years.

Non-chernozem zone. The non-chernozem zone occupies a vast territory. In the European part, it includes 29 regions and autonomous republics RSFSR, seven regions of the southwestern region of the Ukrainian SSR, as well as the BSSR and the Baltic republics. This is a vast agricultural region with great potential for further development of agriculture and animal husbandry. The territory exceeds 280 million hectares, about 70 million hectares are occupied by agricultural land, including arable land about 45, hayfields about 13, pastures and pastures about 12 million hectares. The zone is not homogeneous in terms of natural and economic conditions, specialization of farms and other indicators. In many areas (with the exception of the southern and southeastern) there are great opportunities for increasing the area of agricultural land, including arable land. The southern and southeastern regions have few forests, are characterized by large plowing of lands and dissection of the terrain, which contributes to the development of water erosion.
There are sod-podzolic and other soils characteristic of the taiga-forest zone, in the south in the forest-steppe zone - gray forest. Soils have a different mechanical composition - from heavy loam to sandy loam and sandy, often they are poorly cultivated.
The climate becomes more continental as you move from west to east. Average precipitation decreases from excessive in the northwest to insufficient in the east and southeast. The amount of precipitation varies greatly from year to year.
Temperate crops are grown on arable land: cereals (from winter crops - wheat and rye, from spring crops - barley, oats, and in the southeastern regions - wheat); cereal legumes (peas, lupins, etc.); forage crops (annual grasses - vetch-oat, pea-oat and other mixtures, perennial grasses - clover in pure sowing, clover with timothy grass, clover with fescue and other grass mixtures, on slightly acidic soils - alfalfa); silage crops (corn, sunflower, etc.); fodder root crops (beets, carrots, rutabaga, etc.). This is the main area for the cultivation of potatoes and many crops: fiber flax (the most important industrial crop for these conditions), hemp, sugar beets, etc. Vegetable crops are grown cabbage, tomatoes, cucumbers, table carrots, green crops, in some areas - onions. Protected soil vegetable growing is successfully developing. Fruit growing is more widely represented in the southern regions. The majority of farms (97% of collective farms and state farms in the zone) specialize in milk production. Beef cattle breeding is developed. Such specialization requires the expansion of fodder production on natural fodder lands, cultivated pastures and arable land.
Many collective farms and state farms are still characterized by diversified production. This is manifested in the cultivation of a large number of different crops on arable land with a small share of them in the structure of sown areas. The intensification of agricultural production requires further concentration and specialization of crop production. It will be necessary to reduce the number of cultivated crops and increase their share in the structure of sown areas, as well as change existing crop rotations.
The most important task of the collective farms and state farms of the Non-Chernozem Zone is to further increase the production of grain, especially fodder grain. This problem is solved in different ways: by improving the structure of sown areas, by expanding the sowing of grain crops, and by increasing the yield. Last way- main. To do this, it is necessary to create a high agricultural background by introducing a large number necessary fertilizers, liming of acidic soils, implementation of reclamation and cultural works, cultivation of only zoned highly productive varieties and hybrids cultivated plants. In increasing the production of plant-growing products, the development of new lands, the transformation of "inconveniences" into arable land and other agricultural lands is of great importance.
In the Non-Chernozem zone, there are improved grain, fruit-shifting and tilled farming systems. The improvement of farming systems will be carried out against the backdrop of a wider use of fertilizers, improved soil cultivation, reclamation work, the development of crop rotations with busy fallows, and the cultivation of more productive crop varieties.
Farms in the Non-Chernozem Zone can have different types and types of crop rotations. In field crop rotations specialized in grain production, grain crops, including cereals and grain legumes, can occupy up to 80% of the crop rotation area and are re-located. It is possible to increase the saturation of crop rotations with grain crops by placing winter crops after grain legumes harvested for grain. In many areas, on fertile lands and with high agricultural technology, winter grains are more productive, especially wheat of intensive varieties. On light soils, it is advisable to place winter rye.
With high agricultural technology and good soil dressing with fertilizers, winter crops are sown on occupied fallows (clover, annual grasses, etc.), as well as after early tilled crops, and in some areas after grain crops. legumes harvested for grain. This allows you to get more products than when placing winter crops on clean fallows.
Of the spring cereals, barley is the most productive; valuable food grain crop - spring wheat; in crop rotation it is placed on the best and good predecessors.
Many crop rotations grow perennial grasses, which are usually sown under the cover of another crop. On less fertile soils and with good moisture supply, they are sown under winter wheat, and clover - in early spring. With a high yield of a cover crop (more than 25-30 centners per 1 ha), as well as with a lack of soil moisture in spring and summer (southern, and often central and northwestern regions), perennial grasses should be sown under spring cereals (barley) or annual grasses .
In field flax crop rotations, depending on the achieved level of soil fertility, fiber flax is placed on different predecessors: perennial grasses, tilled crops, winter cereals, etc. On collective farms and state farms, this crop is most often sown on a layer of perennial grasses - one of the best predecessors in the Non-Chernozem zone. Fiber flax in crop rotations still occupies a small area, as a rule, no more than 14.3% (one field in a seven-field crop rotation). With complex mechanization and factory preparation of trusts (the most progressive method), crop rotations can be saturated with this crop to a greater extent.
The area under potatoes in field crop rotations can be increased to 30-40% by placing its early varieties in a fallow field, and the rest in tilled fields. With commercial crops, it is possible to plant potatoes two years in a row in one field. It must be borne in mind that potatoes work better on light soils. Winter rye, oats, lupins, pelushka (fodder peas), and buckwheat should also be sown there. Saturating the crop rotation with potatoes (row crop), it is necessary to apply high doses of organic and mineral fertilizers, sow perennial grasses, green manure and intermediate crops, and implement other methods that increase the humus content in the soil.
In special vegetable crop rotations with high agricultural technology, vegetable crops can occupy all fields.
In farms with developed animal husbandry, fodder crop rotations are widely recommended. They can be saturated with perennial grasses, leaving for 3-4 years of use, annual grasses, silage crops and root crops. In fodder crop rotations, up to 7 thousand fodder units are obtained from 1 ha of arable land.
On slightly acidic and neutral soils, corn-alfalfa crop rotations are possible, which make it possible to increase the collection of fodder units from 1 ha of arable land to 7-8 thousand or more while meeting the need for protein. It is possible, for example, to sow corn for silage in the first three fields of the crop rotation, in the fourth field to corn after the last loosening of the soil between the rows, sow alfalfa or place a cover crop instead of corn and grow alfalfa from the fifth to the eighth field. The number of fields in a crop rotation can be reduced to two: on one, sow corn for four years in a row, on the other, alfalfa for four years. Alfalfa in this case is sown once every four years.
There may be other fodder crop rotations to obtain green fodder in the green conveyor system, complete fodder in the form of briquettes and granules, monofodder, etc. In more southern regions, it is advisable to have intermediate fodder crops in fodder and field crop rotations that can dramatically increase fodder production .

Mechanical tillage is of great importance. In areas of excessive moisture, soil cultivation tends to reduce the negative impact of excess moisture, in arid areas - to accumulate, preserve and use it productively. When choosing the methods and terms of tillage, the features of the predecessor, the period of its harvesting, the condition of the soil, including the degree of infestation with weeds, environmental conditions, the characteristics of the subsequent crop, etc. are taken into account.
In the northern and northeastern regions, after harvesting many crops, it is advisable to carry out plowing as early as possible without preliminary peeling. Stubble peeling is mandatory only in the presence of rhizomatous and root shoot weeds. On heavy soils with excessive moisture, the main tillage is limited to peeling, transferring plowing to spring. After harvesting weed-free row crops (root crops, tubers), deep tillage can be abandoned by only peeling.
In the central and especially in the southern regions, where the post-harvest period is longer, peeling is combined with subsequent deep moldboard processing; after early harvested crops, semi-fallow tillage is possible.
Stubble peeling should be carried out after harvesting the predecessor and no later than the beginning of September in the central and partly more northern regions and mid-September in the south. In later periods, peeling is ineffective. It is necessary to complete plowing no later than the middle - the end of September, and even better in August.
A layer of perennial grasses is raised for spring crops in the eastern regions no later than the first half of September, in the central regions no later than mid-September, in the western regions in the second half of September; under winter crops - immediately after the first mowing.
When processing pure fallows, soil moisture and precipitation in the warm season are taken into account. They often determine the possibility of plowing, re-plowing, deuce and mid-depth peeling or abandoning them and carrying out only layer-by-layer loosening without reversing the formation. When placing winter grains on occupied pairs, as well as when growing intermediate crops, tillage is carried out immediately after harvesting the predecessor. In the northern, northwestern and other regions, in case of excessive moisture, methods are used to remove excess water from the soil. In the southern and partially central regions, water erosion of the soil is developed. Therefore, anti-erosion tillage and other methods are necessary.
There are many light soils in the zone, they should not be plowed annually. Deep plow only when incorporating organic fertilizers. After potatoes, root crops, corn and some other crops, if cereal crops are placed after them, plowing can be replaced by disking to a depth of 10–12 cm.
In the zone, it is necessary to use more widely high-speed tillage, which makes it possible to increase the range of optimal soil moisture for mechanical tillage; more use of various units, for example, the combined unit RVK-3, especially before sowing winter and intermediate crops; reduce the number of tillage operations (minimum tillage), especially in fields with row crops; replace plowing after vetch-oat mixture in a busy pair of disking and other techniques.
These measures give the best result on cultivated soils, well seasoned with fertilizers, using various means of pest, disease and weed control.
Organic and mineral fertilizers are very effective in the zone, especially against the background of high agricultural technology. According to Central Institute agrochemical services for agriculture, 1 quintal of mineral fertilizers in conventional fertilizers gives an average increase in yield (in quintals per 1 ha): rye 1.3-1.5, barley 1.2-1.7, potatoes 6-7, cabbage 12 -18, carrots 10-13, natural hayfields 1.5-2.5. best use mineral fertilizers contributes to the systematic introduction of organic fertilizers, and on acidic soils - calcareous materials.
Fertilizers and other agricultural practices can also dramatically increase the productivity of natural hayfields and pastures.
Experience of advanced farms. Many collective farms and state farms have achieved great success, obtaining on large areas on average (in centners per hectare): 30 grains, 200-300 potatoes, and 50-60 hay perennial grasses.
More than 30 centners of grain per 1 ha are grown by farms located in different regions of the Non-Chernozem Zone, for example, the Lenin collective farm of the Novomoskovsky district of the Tula region, the Zavety Lenina collective farms of the Krasnokholmsky district of the Kalinin region, Vperyod of the Shatsky district of the Ryazan region, etc. Makarov, Odintsovo district, Moscow region in 1975, the yield of winter wheat of the Ilyichevka variety on an area of 9 hectares was 89 centners per 1 ha. This became possible due to the implementation of a number of economic, organizational and agrotechnical measures. Among the latter, correctly selected predecessors in the developed crop rotations, rational tillage, a scientifically based fertilizer system, as well as liming of acidic soils, if necessary, draining and irrigating them, growing highly productive zoned varieties and hybrids, and active control of pests, diseases, and weeds were of great importance.
In the collective farm "Svetly Put" of the Molodechno district of the Minsk region of meat and dairy specialization in the ninth five-year plan, the average yield was (in centners per 1 ha): grain 40.7, potatoes 267, perennial grasses (green fodder) 185; in 1976, respectively, 42.1, 312 and 250. The collective farm is assigned 2,621 hectares of agricultural land, including 1,407 hectares of arable land. Soils in the farm are sod-podzolic, loamy and sandy. The average annual rainfall is 600 mm.
Four eight-field crop rotations with alfalfa of two-year use have been mastered here. Winter rye is sown only on busy pairs (winter for green fodder), potatoes - after winter rye. After the potatoes, barley is placed with alfalfa undersowing, sugar beet is placed along the alfalfa layer, and spring cereals are placed along the layer turnover.
The farm widely uses stubble peeling and deep autumn plowing - up to 25-28 cm. Under the sugar beet, placed along the layer, the main tillage is carried out according to the semi-fallow type: after raising the alfalfa layer, the field is cultivated in two directions.
In early spring, fields for sugar beets, potatoes and spring crops are cultivated in a unit with Zigzag harrows in two directions, for tilled crops they are deeply plowed with simultaneous harrowing to incorporate fertilizers.
Immediately before sowing all crops, with the exception of potatoes, the soil surface is treated with an RVK-3 unit. A high level of mechanization allows all field work to be carried out quickly and in optimal time.
The fields are well seasoned with organic and mineral fertilizers. In 1976, 17 tons of organic and 4 quintals of mineral fertilizers were applied per 1 ha of arable land.
1620 hectares of acidic soils were limed on the farm at the rate of 4 tons of lime per 1 ha. Sow seeds of only zoned varieties. Weeds are absent. The degree of power-to-weight ratio of the economy allows all field work to be carried out in optimal time and with high quality.
On the Krasny Dobrovolets collective farm in the Smolensk district of the Smolensk region, which has 2,398 hectares of agricultural land, including 1,725 hectares of arable land, the average yield during the ninth five-year plan was (in centners per 1 ha): grain 29, fiber flax (fiber) 7, potatoes 241.8, and in 1976 respectively 40.4; 7.7 and 181.
The collective farm has a meat and dairy specialization with developed flax growing. The soils of the economy are sod-podzolic, loamy. The average annual rainfall is 550-600 mm.
The farm has mastered four field and two fodder crop rotations with two fields of perennial grasses (clover with timothy grass).
In a field crop rotation, winter cereals are placed on a busy fallow (annual grasses) and a non-fallow predecessor (barley). Perennial grasses are sown under winter cereals, fiber flax is placed along the layer of perennial grasses, potatoes are placed along the layer turnover. After potatoes, barley is sown in a fallow field, after which winter crops are placed the next year; close the crop rotation with spring cereals.
The main tillage (plowing) is carried out, as a rule, in autumn (fallow) to a depth of the arable layer of -20-22 cm. After harvesting winter cereals, under which perennial grasses are not sown, it is necessary to peel the stubble followed by deep plowing. In spring, they plow with simultaneous harrowing only in one of the fallow fields where barley is sown. The depth of spring plowing is 12-14 cm.
In all fields where there was a plowing, early harrowing and subsequent pre-sowing cultivation with harrowing are mandatory. Before sowing fiber flax and often grain crops, it is necessary to roll the soil. In the tilled field (potatoes) in the spring, after early harrowing, the plowings are fertilized and covered by plowing to a depth of 14-16 cm. Immediately, the soil surface is harrowed. After planting, two pre-emergence and several post-emergence cultivations are carried out, and later - hilling.
Much attention is paid to the liming of acidic soils and the use of fertilizers. 1020 hectares of acidic soils were limed on the farm (6 tons of lime were applied per 1 ha).
In 1976, 14.9 tons of organic and 220 kg of the active substance of mineral fertilizers were applied per 1 ha of arable land. At least 60 tons of organic fertilizers are plowed in the tilled field, the rest - in fallow fields.
Only highly productive zoned varieties are cultivated. Weediness of crops is weak. Agricultural practices are carried out in a timely manner and with high quality.
On the Avangard collective farm, Chkalovsky district, Gorky region, during the ninth five-year plan, the average yield was (in centners per 1 ha): grain 32.1, including winter wheat 35.1, fiber flax (fiber) 7.6, corn silage 463, perennial grasses (hay) 47.3, 1976 respectively 45.3; 55.3; 9.0; 403 and 51.4. The farm is assigned 2629 hectares of agricultural land, including 2110 hectares of arable land. The soils are soddy-podzolic, medium loamy. The average annual rainfall is 500 mm. Farm of flax and dairy direction.
On the collective farm, six fruitful seven-field flax crop rotations have been mastered over the entire area of arable land. Barley is sown in a fallow field. Clover with timothy grass is sown to winter cereals, occupying two fields with perennial grasses. Fiber flax is placed along the layer of perennial grasses, potatoes are placed along the layer turnover, and in the third year - spring cereals.
The plowing is plowed under spring crops to a depth of 20-22 cm, and a layer of perennial grasses - to 18-20 cm. Much attention is paid to pre-sowing tillage. In the spring, the plowing is harrowed, then the soil is cultivated for spring crops and fiber flax with simultaneous harrowing; immediately before sowing, it is treated with the RVK-3 unit. In the fallow and tilled fields, after the spring harrowing of the plough, it is re-ploughed to a depth of 18-20 cm with the simultaneous application of organic and some mineral fertilizers and harrowing.
Potatoes before germination and after germination are harrowed and later spud twice.
Plants are good at providing nutrients. In 1976, an average of 12.8 tons of organic fertilizers and 3 quintals of the active substance of mineral fertilizers were applied per 1 ha of arable land. On the collective farm, acidic soils are systematically limed. In 1976 alone, 185 hectares of acidic soils were limed at the rate of 6 tons of lime per 1 hectare.
Grow only zoned varieties. Crops are clean from weeds. The power-to-weight ratio of the economy allows all field work to be carried out in a timely manner and with high quality. Communication with scientists is constantly maintained and the achievements of agricultural science are being introduced.

The Non-Chernozem Region, or, more precisely, the Non-Chernozem Zone, is a vast territory stretching from the shores of the Arctic Ocean to the forest-steppe zone in the south with its chernozem soils and from the Baltic Sea to Western Siberia. There are 28 regions and republics, as well as the Perm Territory, the Nenets Autonomous Okrug and two federal cities. The Non-Chernozem zone is included in four large economic regions - North-Western, Northern, Volga-Vyatka and Central. Its total area is 2824 thousand km 2. This is more than the area of France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Germany combined. About 60 million people live in the Non-Chernozem region, that is, more than 1/3 of the population of Russia. Since ancient times, the Non-Chernozem Zone has played and continues to play an important role in the history of our Motherland, in its economic and cultural development. Here, in the interfluve of the Oka and Volga, at the end of the 15th century. the Russian centralized state arose. The Russian national culture was created in the Non-Black Earth region, from here the Russians settled throughout the vast country. For centuries, the Russian people have defended their freedom and independence on this territory. Russian industry was born here, large Russian cities have grown and are developing.

And in our time, the Non-Chernozem region has retained a paramount role in the political, economic and cultural life of the country. The center of the Non-Black Earth Region, St. Petersburg, the Urals are the most important industrial bases, forges of scientific and working personnel. In the Non-Black Earth Region there are the capital of our Motherland - Moscow, the second city in terms of economic and cultural significance - St. Petersburg, and such Largest cities and industrial centers such as Nizhny Novgorod, Yekaterinburg, Perm, Yaroslavl, Izhevsk, Tula, etc.

The Non-Chernozem region is an important agricultural region of Russia. Here is 1/5 of the area of agricultural land in the country.

The development of agriculture here is favored by the presence of huge tracts of arable land, many meadows and pastures, as well as good moisture, and the almost complete absence of droughts. True, the soils here are poor in humus. However, the soils of the Non-Chernozem region in climatically favorable areas, when carrying out the necessary reclamation (drainage, liming, mineral fertilizers), can produce up to 80 centners of grain and up to 800–1000 centners of potatoes per hectare.

The development of agriculture in the Non-Black Earth region on the basis of its intensification, melioration, complex mechanization and chemicalization is the level of a national task.

The development of the Non-Black Earth region will take more than one decade. It is necessary to increase the production of various agricultural products.

But the accelerated growth in the production of grain, meat, milk, potatoes, vegetables, and other products is only one of the aspects of the growth of agriculture in the Non-Black Earth region. After all, all the products received must be stored and processed. Therefore, new grain elevators, meat processing plants, dairy plants, storage facilities for potatoes and vegetables are being built here.

It is especially important to organize large mechanized farms in dairy and meat animal husbandry, the main branch of agriculture in the Non-Chernozem region. The population of this zone is the largest consumer of milk and fresh meat.

Work is underway to change the structure and geography of cultivated crops. Thus, due to wheat, the areas under oats and barley are being expanded, as they are more productive and, moreover, suitable for livestock feed, work is underway on a more rational distribution industrial crops(primarily flax), according to the concentration of plantings of potatoes and vegetables.

The primary task is to develop new non-chernozem lands for arable land, improve existing arable land, and increase its fertility. Another important task is the creation of cultural pastures.

An important task has been set before the Non-Chernozem region - the transformation into a region of highly productive agriculture and animal husbandry, as well as the development of industries related to them.

It is unthinkable to fulfill the tasks of transforming the agriculture of the Non-Chernozem region without the active participation of young people. This goal will be attractive to young men and women, here there is an opportunity for everyone to apply their knowledge, energy, and show love for work on earth.

What else to read

France in the second half of the 20th century Slide 1 Slide 2 Slide 3 Slide 4 Slide 5 Slide 6 Slide 7 Slide 8 Slide 9 Slide 10

France in the second half of the 20th century He was against the revival of the pre-war parliamentary republic. Was against the revival of the pre-war parliamentary...

World around winter help birds Municipal state educational institution secondary school No. 3 p. Gribanovsky LESSON ON ...

Non-chernozem zone. Non-chernozem region of Russia

Similar Documents

Books

Village of the Russian Non-Black Earth Region. 1960-1980s

What else to read

THE LAST NOTES

Non-chernozem zone. Non-chernozem region of Russia

Similar Documents

Books

Village of the Russian Non-Black Earth Region. 1960-1980s

What else to read

THE LAST NOTES

Categories