Driving Forces in the Development of Agricultural Education in Belgium at the End of the XIXth Century

1Agricultural education in Belgium underwent a remarkable evolution at the end of the last century because it responded effectively to the contemporary needs of several sectors of the society, although little consideration was taken of the needs of the small farmer.

2During the 1840’s, agricultural instruction had been made compulsory in all training colleges for primary teachers although it was not mentioned in the School Law of 1842 relating to primary schools1. In some of these schools, however, agricultural courses were given from the beginning of the 1850’s on2. In 1849, agricultural institutes at the secondary level were founded throughout the country3. At this time agricultural instruction was largely a response to the structural crisis that had developed in textiles, especially in the linen sector. To meet foreign competition, wages in that sector had to be kept low. Because most of the labourers were both farmers and textile workers, a lowering of wages was possible if it could be offset by higher revenues from the farm. Knowledge of crop rotation, irrigation, draining, etc. was considered necessary to achieve this, so agricultural instruction must be stressed4. Accordingly agricultural education commenced during, and was stimulated by, the agricultural crisis of 1844-50, itself mainly caused by the sudden onset of a new potato disease. Surprisingly enough, judging from textbooks of that period, the « new » theories of Liebig about artificial fertilizers received little attention5.

3When the economic prosperity of the late 1850’s and the raising of prices for farm products diminished the need forhigher additional revenues agricultural education no longer appeared to be necessary. All agricultural secondary schools were closed, agriculture was omitted from the teacher training programmes and effort was focused on horticulture and forestry6. In 1860, an advanced institute for agriculture was created at Gembloux to train scientists and develop agricultural science7. These scientists became the driving force in the second phase of agricultural education. Like their colleagues in earlier periods, they wanted to put their knowledge into practice. Education of the ordinary farmer was considered an excellent way to bring this about8. From about 1870 on, instruction in farming was again given at some primary schools in agricultural regions such as West Flanders and Namur9.

4The influence exercised by purely scientific theories upon economic and social ideas is noteworthy. Up to this point agriculture was considered a fixed parameter in economic life: the sector output remained the same over the centuries because bound to natural conditions (such as soil fertility and climate) which could not be altered by human intervention. The development of mineral fertilizers opened up a possibility of theoretically unlimited output as a result of human intervention. Agriculture now became an industry in a capitalist sense: variable and increasing output paved the way for increased profits, and the more investment there was in mineral fertilizers, the higher those profits would be. The farmer became an industrial labourer who had to be trained in order to increase his output10. The interests of the large landowners with market-oriented farms went hand in hand with those of scholars of the Gembloux institute. From this time on, textbooks treated mineral fertilizers very extensively although the actual use of such fertifizers was mainly limited to the larger farms11.

5In the meantime, the structures of the agricultural sector had changed. Mechanisation was introduced about 1830, especially on large farms in Britain and in the USA where major development occurred during the American Civil War (1861-1865) when a million farmers were under arms thus creating a manpower shortage. The elimination of manual labour, a high cost factor, decreased the total cost of farm products12. After the Civil War, the great transcontinental railways were constructed, which linked the agricultural areas to the Atlantic harbours. The increased output resulting from mechanisation could now be exported. Improvements in sailing ships, and later in steam vessels, lowered transport costs for ocean shipping, so that after 1880 the cheaper American grains could be imported by Europe and sold for less than native grains. This structural change, namely technological innovation giving an international dimension to the agricultural market, created the agricultural crisis of the 1880’s in Western Europe. Similar innovations were introduced in Canada, Russia, Argentine, and Rumania which aggravated the crisis. There is a clear distinction between this crisis and the one of the 1840’s, when farming had to deal with accidental circumstances (disease, climate) which decreased output and brought an inevitable rise in prices. In the 1880’s grain prices decreased so that domestic producers had to sell their products at a loss. The first crisis chiefly affected the common people by raising the price’ of food; the second favored them by lowering it. Small farmers, who had little or nothing to do with the market economy, were not troubled by the crisis, but for the large landowners, it was devastating. A sudden, accidental crisis may disappear of itself; a structural crisis, however, requires a structural solution13.

6The large landowners, often members of the Catholic Party, demanded domestic import tariffs on foreign grains to protect domestic production. The industrialists, often members of the Liberal Party, refused and argued that protectionism would cause other countries to impose retaliatory tariffs on Belgian industrial products. Something else, too, worried the industrialists: Belgian industry maintained its position on the international market largely because of the low prices of its products, which depended in turn on low wages. Belgian industry, therefore, was no longer based on technological innovation but on cheap traditional products. The lowering of food prices favored such a low-wage policy because it increased the real wages of the labourers. Import tariffs would cancel this advantage and force industry to adopt a policy of innovation when it had lost the habit14.

7Several solutions were proposed. Mechanisation in the agricultural sector was an obvious one, to reduce production costs, but most of the Belgian farms were too small to benefit from mechanisation. Expropriation of the small farmers would make it possible, but this was unthinkable to most sectors of society and would cause intolerable social unrest. Expropriation was also too closely related to « awful » socialist and anarchist theories to be politically palatable. Further, mechanisation would cause unemployment in the agricultural sector, thus increasing the exodus to the cities.

8Others proposed a shift from the traditional crops (grains), which suffered from the price-reduction, to constant-price production such as vegetables, fruit, or animal husbandry. Problems arose, however, because of the inability of some soils to support such a shift, the large amount of capital needed, and lack of knowledge on the part of the farmers. A grain grower could not become a gardener or cattleman from one day to the next15. The creation of a credit bank for farmers was no remedy because farmers were not able to pay the interest, which exceeded the profits16.

9Many people argued that a sector that was no longer remunerative would disappear automatically: farmers would turn to industry to find new occupations. Almost all the political parties criticised this solution. The industrial structure would not be able to absorb such a sudden influx of labourers, Wholesale unemployment would result and cause social disorder. But worst of all would be the loss of consumers of industrial products which would result from such unemployment17. The Catholic Party rejected the solution because as long as the farmer stayed on the farm and lived in his native village, he could be protected from the immoral and anti-religious ideas that circulated in the factories and cities. This Party relied a great deal on the traditional and conservative countryside and feared every social change18.

10This enumeration of the main solutions proposed is not purely illustrative. Rather it shows that the solution finally accepted by all parties – agricultural education – was not initially a purposeful choice. It was rather a forced solution which, being ideologically and economically neutral, encountered the least resistance. Nevertheless, agricultural education brought some real advantages. It stressed the use of actificial fertilizers and thus increased the output per hectare, while the total production costs remained roughly the same. So the market-oriented farms became competitive again and food prices remained low, which satisfied industrial requirements.

11Artificial fertilizers also served to promote social stability by decreasing the minimum area for a self-sufficient farm. A higher number of such small farms became possible, which slowed the flight to the cities. Artificial fertilizers also increased the total area under cultivation by rendering formerly infertile land capable of supporting crops. Thus the number of farms incresed. It is evident that the ideas of scientific and progressive culture led in practice to consolidation of the conservative structure of society19.

12Industry, too, found advantages in an agricultural education promoting the use of artificial fertilizers. The Solvay procedure for making soda no longer used sulphuric acid, the raw material in the old Leblanc soda process, so the acid industry lost a very important market. Rigid anti-pollution legislation saddled the zinc industry with large quantities of sulphuric acid. This acid could now be used to manufacture most common fertilizers: superphosphates, ammonium sulphates and processed guano. The Thomas process in Steel manufacturing yielded calcium and phosphorus, which also could be used as fertilizer20. Agricultural education thus became a large-scale advertising campaign promoting industrial byproducts. Since agricultural education was an acceptable solution for all sectors, with no ideological or political overtones, it underwent a remarkable expansion from 1884 on, in terms of a generalisation and consolidation of already existing structures.

13In 1884 the Government made agricultural education compulsory for primary boys’ schools in rural areas, but it was already being provided in some regions in 1870. In 1879, experimental agricultural courses were being given at some secondary schools and by 1886 some 28 schools offered them21. Agricultural courses for adults were set up in 1887, a consolidation of the situation in the 1870’s. Beginning in 1860, public lectures had been organised on horticulture, forestry, and agriculture; in 1887, they were brought together in special programmes22. In 1885, a special service of agricultural consultants was created by the Government in order to enlighten the farmers via lectures, courses, and experimental fields and gardens to demonstrate the advantage and correct use of Chemical fertilizers23. What was new was the creation of secondary agricultural schools or « sections » conceived of as offering professional training programmes. Around 1900 primary professional schools were also set up, and courses were organised for men in military service24.

14Almost no changes were made with respect to higher education. The institute at Gembloux continued while, in 1878, before the crisis, a similar institute had been created by the University of Louvain, although, unlike the institute at Gembloux which was sponsored by the Government, this was a private initiative by the University. The same is true of secondary schools, although the Government did subsidise them. The use of actificial fertilizers was a central topic in the programme of schools and in lectures, a continuation of earlier policy. Attention was also given to insecticides, herbicides, machinery, breeding, and horticulture (in which the use of Chemical fertilizers was recommended) in order to stimulate the transition from traditional to more constant-price activities25.

15During the 1880’s there were no important reforms with regard to organisation or content compared with the 1870’s. Rather the main contribution of the 1880’s was a large-scale generalisation and popularisation of the « new » agri cultural science, an almost unique phenomenon in the history of science. Contemporaries attributed the success of this popularisation almost exclusively to extramural education, namely the public courses and the experimental fields. The schools contributed by training the teachers for extramural activities26.

16To complete the picture, one must mention the associations of farmers, organised from 1885 on, to group the farmers into purchasing and marketing cooperatives. These unions also contributed to the education of their members by lectures and publications. The fertilizer industry stimulated the advertising and educational campaign by publishing pamphlets and even by supporting the publication of textbooks. One can conclude this from the numerous advertisements placed in these books27.

17The popularisation of agricultural science was very successful. Belgium became the largest consumer in the world of artificial fertilizers and achieved the highest output per hectare in the world. The domestic fertilizer industry found an excellent market for its sulphuric acid, and the industrial sector as a whole remained competitive in international markets because it was able to keep wages low. Many other industrial countries like Germany and France had reacted to the agricultural crisis with tariff barriers so the price of food in those countries was much higher than in Belgium and forced wages to rise28. The large market-oriented farms made profits once more and smaller farms became more numerous. Owing to this, society remained stable, which benefited the Catholic Party and the Catholic religion. Finally the nation as a whole profited from increased export of some agricultural products29).

18The success was, however, only temporary lasting up to the First World War. Because Belgian industry could still made profits in traditional sectors, it lost the spirit and mentality of innovation. This caused serious problems when, later on, low wages were no longer accepted by the labourers and when new countries with lower wages entered its traditional markets, particularly after the Second World War. Belgian industry still does not seem be able to deal with this situation by a policy of innovation and structural reform30. Paradoxically, scientific agriculture would, ultimately, add to the flight to the cities. Scientific agriculture is essentially a labour-saving technique and, in time, employment in the sector decreases. Scientific farming is costly: machines must be paid for and only the sons of large farmers are able to go to training schools for long periods. The smaller farms will disappear, and these farmers will seek work in industry31.

19Scientific farming puts higher and higher demands on the intellect of the farmer. Those who are not capable will fail while the intelligent farmers will often look for more lucrative jobs in other sectors32. Scientific agriculture led the agricultural sector inevitably to capitalism. Profit became the main object, which resulted in increased use of artificial fertilizers, insecticides, hormones, fungicides, etc. Although the teachers warned against the risks of an overuse of those products33, they lost control of the results of their science. A Pandora’s Box of environmental and health problems was opened34. The ordinary farmer, however, did not gain anything. Larger output did not necessarily mean higher incomes because prices decreased as the supply of products increased. Higher outputs increased the demands for fields and land by the larger farms, so rents became higher. The profits of the new way of agriculture went ultimately to the landowners and not to the small tenants35.

20One can ask why these people still followed the advice to engage in a scientific agriculture? In the first place they were enticed by the predicted higher farm outputs. But there is a stronger argument. The use of artificial fertilizers by some progressive farmers, most of them from big market-oriented farms, increased prices and rents for arable land. Because in Belgium most farmers (72 %) were tenant-farmers, almost the whole rural population was affected by such an evolution. So even the formerly self-sufficient farmers (about 75 %) were forced to become market-oriented in order to make higher profits. This, in turn, forced them to rely on a scientific agriculture (e.g. use of fertilizers, machines…). But because every increase in farm output was followed by a proportional increase in rents, there was still no net-profit for the tenant-farmer. So the small farmer became a market-dependent and vulnerable producer instead of a market-indifferent one, which created a situation of constant struggle, in which the small farmer often lost out, so increasing anew the flight to the cities36.

21In the present writer’s view agricultural education and agricultural science were misused by politicians who allowed matters to drift insofar as social legislation to assist small farmers was concerned. While higher farm outputs were promised, radical solutions were postponed. Indeed only in 1952 was some social legislation at last realised when a maximum rent was fixed by law. Until that date most of the profits resulting from the activities of associations, or use of artificial fertilizers, went to the landowers37.

22It is difficult to decide whether politicians were merely hypocritical or opportunistic in arguing that agricultural education would favour the small farmers, while consciously misleading and deceiving these (and rural teachers as well) in favour of the electoral or material interests of the large landowners, or whether they acted sincerely but somewhat shortsightedly given they were out of touch with the real problems of the farmers (as were the scientists and academics). In any case, after an initial period of success for agricultural education there supervened a situation aggravated by the scientific approach to agriculture. Every sector of society has been affected by the problems to which the given form of agricultural education has given rise.