What if the Virgin land campaign were moderately successful?

[Reisen Storm]

Ever since its inception, the Soviet Union has been plagued with an agricultural crisis that it could never shake off. Various soviet leaders, starting with Georgy Malenkov, tried to rectify it with varying degrees of results. The most radical being Nikita Khrushchev's Virgin Lands campaign in which he proposed the plowing and cultivation of 13 million hectares of previously uncultivated land in order to alleviate the food shortages plaguing the Soviet populace. Though initially successful in 1956-1959, it ended in failure as the harvest output kept on decreasing.

What I want to know is, how would Soviet agriculture turn out differently if, for say, the Virgin Land Campaign was moderately successful in the mid-to late term? And what would the consequences be for agricultural labor, kolkhoz, and sovkhozes? And would future soviet leaders try to implement their own version of the Virgin land campaign if the first was successful? But perhaps more importantly, would it end the food shortages for the common soviet citizen?

Map of virgin lands campaign area

 

[prani]

I mean even I give the Virgin lands campaign a lot of flak, I mean it is a matter of record that I said it is a disaster. May be I did exaggerate it. Cause the Campaign was moderately successful, like the USSR from the mid 50s to the late 70s was usually self sufficient in the matter of food grains and had to import feed grain from the US and Argentina as the soviets began to drink more milk eat more milk products and eat more meat, it was in the 80s when the union faced unusual weather crises did the shortfall of this program come to light. Under normal circumstances the lands produced enough grain to feed the union and in some years produced a massive surplus, i mean just look at modern day Russia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine massive grain exporting countries BUT the yield per hectare is less than that of India at 3.5 tones per hectare and Ukraine produces marginally a bit more per hectare. Nothing much changed between the Soviet and Modern times, except equipment's but they caused a fall in manpower required which made farming more productive per person but it marginally increased yields and if you compared the yields between say more advanced countries like UK, Netherlands who produce 7 tones per hectare, you could say nothing much has actually changed except climate which is more warmer because of climate change, so producing grains there even with modern equipment and inputs is less productive than say in UK or in western Europe. So with better climate and weather the soviets could have pulled it off. So it was a moderate success even in our timeline but it was at the expense of yield in areas of the country where agriculture had been established and had the necessary infrastructure and yields were much more productive.

Why I and the rest of arm chair economists give it such a hard time is because well.....the Soviets had an Industrial base that was formidable yes but it was not large enough to bring 13 million hectares which is about 130,000 sq kilometers, under cultivation within a few years, you had to assemble tractors and other farm equipment's and at the same time increase the production of fertilizers, pesticides and other agricultural inputs while at the same time build railways, roads, houses, store houses for equipment and inputs, silos etc. and to top it off.................. you had man power shortage and why would anyone in the right mind would move to Kazakhstan.

Which is why you have people like me saying, it would be better for the soviets to intensify cultivation in areas of the country where there are already links between farm and factory and inputs which results in synergy and those lands were productive and had better climate than the virgin lands. Soviets would have been better off using those massive lands as ranches where they could have raised cattle which is fed on hay. So you need not import so much feed grain and as time passes the soviets would gradually reach self sufficiency in the matter of food such that by the 80s the soviet agriculture would be in a much better state to handle the unusual climate.

 

[Goats-&-Bolts]

modern day Russia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine massive grain exporting countries BUT the yield per hectare is less than that of India at 3.5 tones per hectare … more advanced countries like UK, Netherlands who produce 7 tones per hectare,

What accounts for this discrepancy? Is it the type of grain cultivated?

 

[Albidoom]

What accounts for this discrepancy? Is it the type of grain cultivated?

The amount of fertilizer used probably contributes much as well.

https://ourworldindata.org/fertilizers

It seems that India uses per hectare of cropland about eight times as much fertilizer as Russia (and almost two-and-a-half as much as Ukraine)

 

[prani]

What accounts for this discrepancy? Is it the type of grain cultivated?

World Wheat Production by Country

Countries by Wheat Production.

www.atlasbig.com

No they grow winter and spring wheat the same variety that Ukraine grows. Problem is in agriculture you need to invest a lot in agriculture, it is something like a relay sport, each generation has to actively improve the land by use of fertilizers, manure and crop rotation, this apart from seed management and of course what he said

The amount of fertilizer used probably contributes much as well.

https://ourworldindata.org/fertilizers

It seems that India uses per hectare of cropland about eight times as much fertilizer as Russia (and almost two-and-a-half as much as Ukraine)

which kinda makes it awkward cause Russia supplies India with a lot of fertilizer.
BUT check out this old data

Wheat in the world - B.C. Curtis

check out Russia! 1.5 tones per hectare, Check out Kazakhstan the heart of the virgin lands campaign , 700 kilos per hectare? and Ukraine is at 3.3 tones per hectare.
It comes back to my argument and why I yell at virgin lands campaign, like it is stupid! It is common sense that ploughing in vrigin lands out in the pontic and Kazakh steppe where the soil is heavy and acidic and climate is rough (It is really windy out there and if you apply fertilizer out there it is going to be blown off along with the top soil as you plough the land), you are going to need a lot in the way of investment to make the land suitable for cultivation.
So you can't just dump fertilizers for years on end and hope everything would work out.
Climate and weather does play a bigger role than fertilizer

Crop Explorer Country Summary for Major Crop Regions - United States Department of Agriculture

ipad.fas.usda.gov

look at the graph
compare to that of India

Crop Explorer Country Summary for Major Crop Regions - United States Department of Agriculture

ipad.fas.usda.gov

The dip is due to failure of monsoon, but compare to that of Russia, such a dip is in the ordinary course for them

The Virgin lands campaign should have been like what Brazil had done with their acidic soil, use lime and Potash (As their soil is poor in Potash while India's is deficient in Nitrogen), it is possible but it take a lot of time.

 

[Valentinian]

I apologize it advance as this topic is a little outside of my wheelhouse, but I am genuinely curious. Would it have been better if the Soviets tried to increase beef and dairy production in these area by turning them into large livestock ranches instead of cereal farms? The area is grasslands (I believe) and ranching requires fewer people. It would decrease the need for imports and help alleviate the meat shortages the Soviets suffered from.

 

[prani]

I apologize it advance as this topic is a little outside of my wheelhouse, but I am genuinely curious. Would it have been better if the Soviets tried to increase beef and dairy production in these area by turning them into large livestock ranches instead of cereal farms? The area is grasslands (I believe) and ranching requires fewer people. It would decrease the need for imports and help alleviate the meat shortages the Soviets suffered from.

You are correct in your interpretation and a Valid point but we need folks who know a thing or two about kolkhoz and sovkhozy as to why wasn't it done or was it done, that we are just not aware of

 

[Vinization]

@Alexniko

 

[Alexniko]

@Alexniko

I'm honored. Anyway, much of the area was actually used for cattle farming before the virgin lands campaign. The problem is that meat requires a lot more human labour for the same amount of calories than grain. Krushchev's goal was to put an end to food insecurity for good and turn the country into a major net-grain exporter. Allthough cattle breeding was also expanded during the campaign, it was not it's main focus. It was a simple matter of political intentions.

Overall, @prani had allready anticipated much of what I would've said. There were two main problems with the virgin lands campaign. The first one was structural while the second one was a concrete policy error. Much more could've been gained by investing in the intensification of lands allready in use (especially in the Ukraine and Southern Russia). Molotov was especially vocal about this point (the campaign was a major factor in the reasoning behind the attempted ouster of Krushchev). Despite this, the campaign, if better planned and prepared, could've been more successfull than it was historically. The rushed nature of the campaign was what mainly caused Krushchev's embarrassing loss of face.