User:Dr Gangrene/agriculture

Early history: to the 20th century[edit]

In earlier times, Luxembourg was, like many countries throughout history, primarily an agricultural land. Under the rule of the Habsburgs, Luxembourg was the largest province of the Austrian Netherlands but simultaneously one of the poorest and least populated. 96 percent of the population lived in rural areas and depended on agriculture. The industry also had a rural character, with steel production being the most important, maintaining strong ties to agriculture. There was no concentration of large enterprises. The numerous forges and mills were small businesses scattered across the countryside, much like farmers utilised the land, exploiting the bean iron ore and wood found on-site or in the nearby surroundings. Other industries, such as weaving and tanning, were closely linked to agriculture, employing people from farming households and sourcing materials from them. One could say that during this time, industry served as an extension of agriculture.

The land, or more precisely, land ownership, was deeply ingrained in the social consciousness. In the mindset of the people of that era, land ownership symbolised wealth, leading to the concentration of capital in land rather than in industries.

The early agricultural practices involved a complex exploitation system, where various technical and human factors played crucial roles. Key elements included crop rotation, servitudes, and collective rights. This system persisted beyond the transition from the Ancien Régime and endured in Luxembourg even after the French Revolution until the second half of the 19th century.

For many centuries, the agrarian system in Luxembourg was characterised by triennial crop rotation and the prohibition of fencing plowed fields.^[1] Triennial crop rotation involved letting the land lie fallow for one year out of three, with alternate sowing of autumn and spring wheat in the other two years. Fallowing aimed to allow the soil to replenish the necessary nutrients for subsequent cultivation in the following years. Given the extensive fragmentation of arable lands, this system required significant village solidarity.^[1] All plots within the same rotation had to be plowed, sown, and harvested simultaneously, as individual access to the plots via local paths was virtually nonexistent.^[1] This was only possible in the absence of fences, the installation of which was strictly prohibited.^[1]

Additionally, the prohibition of fencing fields allowed the community, especially its poorer members, to benefit their livestock in spring and summer from the grass on fallow lands (until the sowing of wheat) and the remnants of the harvest, such as stubble and grains in autumn.^[1] The passage of cattle, but especially the numerous sheep in the country, provided meager manure, though significantly insufficient to restore soil fertility.^[1] As long as yields (harvesting only 4 to 6 grains for every grain sown) remained limited, maximising fields for cereal production was essential.^[1]

The chronic shortage of forage allowed only limited livestock stabling during the off-season, often forcing farmers to graze their animals in the forest from March/April, with a risk of acorn poisoning.^[1] The insufficient production of manure to return essential nutrients to the soil further hindered the improvement of cereal production and the qualitative and quantitative enhancement of livestock, especially in the face of demographic growth.^[1]

Triennial crop rotation with unproductive fallow land was the norm in Luxembourg until the early 1830s.^[1] From this point, this system was gradually replaced by the cultivation of forages, roots, and tubers in the fallow rotation.^[2] Triennial crop rotation primarily applied to the richer wheat-producing lands in the southern part of the country.^[3] In the Ardennes, where arid and poor soils supported meagre rye crops—less demanding than wheat and better suited to cold and rainy conditions—a longer crop rotation cycle was often observed.^[3]

Starting from 1761, ordinances from Empress Maria Theresa sought to restrict livestock access to meadows in our regions from March to October, allowing landowners to harvest the produce from these lands 'to maintain a larger livestock and provide a greater abundance of fertiliser.'^[4]

The first ordinance from the Provincial Council dated 10 March 1761, banned all natural meadows to prevent animals from trampling and destroying the upcoming hay harvest from spring onwards.^[4] The ordinance of 6 March 1762 was more specific, as it banned all meadows from 1 March to 15 October.^[4] It aimed to preserve the second-cut grass, which provided a significant additional hay yield for winter.^[4] Moreover, it encouraged the creation of artificial meadows.^[4] The ordinance of 13 April 1769, mandated that these artificially seeded meadows with clover, sainfoin, and alfalfa must be guarded and preserved from livestock as carefully as wheat fields, without the need for fencing.^[4] However, one might question how to protect plots of artificial meadows amidst others left to collective grazing if not by using fences, something that would have been impractical for small farms.^[4]

The plants mentioned above belong to the legumes category. Besides producing good fodder for livestock, what is the interest of legumes in crop rotation? These plants have the ability to absorb atmospheric nitrogen through symbiotic bacteria in their root nodules and convert it into organic nitrogen. This nitrogen not only benefits the forage harvest but also remains in the soil, available for subsequent crops. Legumes, therefore, have a distinctly fertilising effect on the soil, and additionally, they produce large quantities of proteins without the need for nitrogen fertilisers. While the fertilising effect of legumes has been empirically known for centuries, it was only towards the end of the 19th century that the process of bacterial nitrogen fixation was elucidated. However, it should be noted that plants do not rely solely on nitrogen, and the least available element determines the level of plant production. Therefore, the nitrogen left by legumes can fully benefit the subsequent wheat crop only if it finds sufficient phosphorus, potassium, and calcium in the soil. Yet these optimal conditions were certainly not met in 18th century Luxembourg, leading many specialists to doubt 'that the great literary upheaval of the second half of the 18th century, in which artificial meadows play a predominant role, was quickly followed by significant effects.'

An ordinance from 1770 allowed the enclosure of properties to protect them from common grazing. Large landowners with contiguous lands could enclose their fields and meadows to prohibit access to others' livestock. However, enclosing small parcels of 20 to 30 acres scattered across the territory, subjected to the same cultivation cycle, was impossible. For the vast majority of farmers in Luxembourg, who at that time had no intention of relinquishing their right to common grazing, this measure remained practically ineffective. Even large landowners did not necessarily have an interest in fencing their estates, as the passage of someone else's flock of sheep provided the rare manure of that time. The absence of a fence also allowed the wealthy to feed their own livestock inexpensively on others' lands. Around the 1860s, fences around properties outside the villages in our country were still rare.

Around the 1770s, there was much talk in the country about the division of communal lands (which villages collectively own and where each resident has certain rights), excluding forests, to increase the extent of arable land by developing heaths, fallows, and moors. Enlightened Austrian absolutism expected an increase in population and a boost in livestock, ultimately hoping for improved fiscal returns and more soldiers for the army. Between 1778 and 1791, 114 localities in the Duchy of Luxembourg requested permission to divide communal lands among all heads of households. Day laborers had the opportunity to finally become landowners, small farmers could climb the social ladder by expanding their fields and meadows, and the authorities anticipated an increase in food quantities. Thus, around 4290 hectares were distributed, especially in the southern part of the country. The Ardennes residents were not inclined to share the less fertile communal lands in their region, which could be difficult to develop.

The initial project of the Provincial Council foresaw the abolition of the right of free passage, a proposition strongly opposed by owners of large herds, nobles, clergy, and bourgeois. Moreover, during the actual division, many day laborers quickly sold their shares to free themselves from debts. While the division, as Roger Engel suggests, is one of the most significant economic measures since the time of Maria Theresa at the end of Austrian rule, it seems that the 'requests' for communal usage rights were hardly influenced, especially in the northern part of the country, which had little participation in this action.

The ordinances of Maria-Theresa and her son Joseph II, as well as the attempts to abolish usage rights by republican France and Napoleon, had little impact on the agrarian reality of the late 18th century, or indeed that of the early 19th century and beyond. Artificial meadows, gradually appearing in the region from the 1830s, were however its beneficiaries as they were excluded from common grazing since 1769 as long as they bore forage, although this measure seemed ineffective without fences.

In his series of articles on past agricultural problems and structures published in Hémecht (1967 to 1971), Gilbert Trausch notes that "common grazing continued throughout the 19th century and only slowled retreats as the conditions linked to its existence evolved. In the Ardennes, where heaths and moors are extensive, its predominance will always remain more extensive than in the Guttland."

Adding some additional information, Eugène Fischer writes in his historical notes on the agricultural situation in 1860 that "today the situation of agriculture here is such that the abolition of common grazing would be a blessing for it." While the social conditions in the countryside — where there is always a significant portion of small farmers and day laborers whose lands cannot feed a few meager cows, goats, or sheep throughout the year — were still not favorable to the outright abolition of communal rights, the Agriculture Commission, chaired by veterinarian Eugène Fischer (1821-1903) from 1860, sees things differently.

Indeed, Luxembourgish agriculture from the 1840s was characterised by significant deforestation, substantially increasing arable land and meadows. Fertilising clovers and alfalfas gradually replaced unproductive fallow land, allowing for an increase and improvement in the native livestock. A greater forage production extended the winter stabling period, and the surplus manure collected contributed entirely to increasing wheat production. At the same time, the soil benefited from lime fertilisers produced using a new and inexpensive process by metallurgical factories. Peruvian guano was first imported around 1850. However, soil improvement measures at that time still had limited scope. During the same years, road and local path construction gained momentum, and the first railway lines were under construction, enabling increased trade.

However, the 1840s experienced four years of "famine and misery." It is understandable, therefore, that small farmers during this time and even later, if they did not choose the arduous path of emigration, remained strongly attached to their traditional rights.

The general report presented by the Agriculture Commission on the agricultural situation in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg for the year 1863 concludes at the end of its exposition that "the best encouragement to grant to agriculture is to ensure it enjoys the products it creates. With the current organisation of rural policing, the existence of common grazing, this security does not exist." Consequently, it once again demanded the reorganisation of rural policing.

In the early 1870s, the Government conducted an investigation among municipalities to understand their views on this thorny issue. Of the 122 municipalities surveyed by district commissioners, 41% were in favor of abolishing collective rights, while 59% preferred their maintenance or at least reforms adapted to the needs of agriculture. The difference between the three districts was not very significant: the North of the country opted for maintaining rights by 60%, and the South still favoured it by 57.5%. Why? The memory of the years of hardship during the 1840s may not be unrelated to this attitude. Did the communal councils vote predominantly for the maintenance of common grazing solely out of charity towards small farmers and day laborers? It seems not.

A criticism was launched by a correspondent of the Annales du Cercle Agricole et Horticole in January 1872: "The right of pasture is ... to the profit of the rich landowners, who retain large sheep herds, which are partly fed on the fields of the small farmers. Probably for this reason most of the communal councils of the country, which are uniformly composed of the richest landowners, have expressed themselves almost unanimously for the preservation of pasture rights, in the inquiry set up by the government".^{[note 1]}

During the 1870s, the country indeed had, depending on the year, between 43,000 to 49,000 sheep raised primarily for meat, with a significant portion being exported to France and Belgium. It can be understood, therefore, that the interest in maintaining communal rights was manifested both among small and large landowners but for different reasons. Some hoped to find a way to feed a few animals as best they can, while others sought to maximise their profits at the expense of the village community.

A new law on common grazing was discussed in the Chamber of Deputies on 1 March 1872, but it was ultimately promulgated only on 22 April 1873. This may be due to the authorities' hesitation to change the system of communal rights to which 60% of the municipalities in the country still held,^{[note 2]} for different reasons depending on the regions. This law definitively abolished the right of passage throughout the territory, prohibited access of all types of livestock to artificial meadows, to natural meadows where there were apparent and continuous works of irrigation, drainage, or sanitation that could be damaged by livestock, as well as to lands sown or prepared for sowing. The right of common grazing on fields stripped of their harvest was now the responsibility of the municipality. Communes were authorised to modify, restrict, or even eliminate common grazing on all or part of their territory. They decided, after consulting the owners, the time and date the right would exist, the nature of the lands on which it could be exercised, and the number of head of livestock each owner would be allowed to take to common grazing. Thus, one could take one head of large livestock or six sheep per hectare of property. Large sheep farmers were certainly not unhappy with this solution. The day laborers, who were neither owners nor farmers, were allowed to put on lands subject to communal rights, one cow with its calf, two sheep, two goats, and two pigs, either in a separate herd or in the common herd.

Owners who opposed the passage on their lands of animals from a member of their village community would clearly mark with a pole topped with a tuft of straw the areas subject to the ban. These straw torches, known as Stréipréiter, were still in use in Luxembourg's villages in the Oesling until the end of the First World War.

The general report of the Agriculture Commission published in 1891 covering the period from 1839 to 1889, which aimed to be a jubilant assessment of Luxembourgish agriculture on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of Luxembourg's independence, avoided mentioning this thorny issue. The authors, Eugène Fischer, veterinarian and president, and Jean-Pierre Joseph Koltz (1827-1907), general warden of forest and waters and secretary, had the main objective of showcasing a thriving Luxembourgish agriculture to which, in their view, the Agriculture Commission had made a significant contribution. Delving into the details of common grazing rights, symbols for almost 140 years of an outdated agrarian system, would mean tarnishing this positive image of constant progress, a vision so dear to the 19th century, which they wanted to present to both Luxembourgers and foreigners.

All this legislation from the 1870s and 1880s therefore limited communal rights in the face of a rapidly expanding agriculture without completely abolishing them. Village solidarity, without which a three-year rotation of crops and the exercise of common grazing rights could not function to general satisfaction, would now be redirected towards other horizons. These included joint purchases of seeds, fertilisers, and agricultural equipment, improvement works on lands, and the creation of dairy cooperatives that ultimately allowed all farmers to produce better and obtain a higher value for their products.

On 18 March 1886, the first casting of steel according to the Gilchrist–Thomas process was produced in Dudelange. The Thomas slag, based on phosphates, a byproduct of this new production, was quickly made available to Luxembourgish farmers at favorable prices. This contributed to fertilising and enhancing the meager soils of the Oesling relatively quickly.

During the last quarter of the 19th century, the social conditions linked to communal rights evolved rapidly. While in 1870, 60% of the active population worked in agriculture, only 42% remained in 1907, and 30% in 1935. Farmers with small, non-profitable farms that no longer supported a family were the first to leave the countryside to work in the industrial centers of the southern part of the country. Many preferred emigrating to escape daily misery. Their plots were absorbed by viable farms. Meanwhile, heaths and moors were converted into arable land, making sheep farming and fattening less and less profitable.

The very foundation of communal rights gradually disappeared, rendering the 1873 law obsolete. However, the right of common grazing has never been abolished. As the raison d'être of the 1873 law gradually disappeared over the decades, no reason to abolish it and replace it with another regulation emerged. It was simply relegated to oblivion.

The agrarian structure of the Luxembourgish region that was still in place at the beginning of the 19th century, consisted of a three-year crop rotation with fallow and certain communal rights. The limited hay from natural meadows hardly allowed feeding animals in the stable for a long time, and the often frail livestock must, in some years, even before the arrival of winter and especially well before the arrival of spring, go to the woods, sometimes for weeks, to graze on oak shoots and leaves while risking falling ill quickly. It is true that in the three-year crop rotation, the unproductive fallow would be replaced from the second half of the 19th century by artificial meadows already excluded from common grazing since the Ancien Régime. It was only 25 years later that communal rights were restricted to harvested wheat fields, gradually falling into disuse after the First World War as the active agricultural population decreased and the economic situation of viable farms improved.

20th century to present day[edit]

The development of Luxembourgish crop and livestock farming, collectively referred to as agriculture, shares various characteristics with other countries:

The active population engaged in agriculture is continuously declining
Individual production units are becoming larger
Specialisation among farms is growing
Mechanisation and, consequently, capital investment are on the rise
Without state or supranational support, agriculture is no longer sustainable

Since the establishment of the Common Market, the restructuring process of Luxembourgish agriculture has intensified.^[5] Given that natural and economic conditions in Luxembourg do not allow for specialisation in crop production, Luxembourgish agriculture has shifted towards animal production.^[5] This has led to an overall increase in herbivores and, specifically, in bovine production (+37,000 cattle).^[5] In contrast, the pig population and poultry farming have experienced a decline of -36,000 and -330,000 animals, respectively, since the 1960s.^[5]

Since the 1990s, agriculture has evolved towards certified quality production with labels and a greater emphasis on environmental responsibility.^[5] As a result of this movement since the early eighties, organic farming has diversified the Luxembourgish agricultural landscape, currently numbering around a hundred 'bio' producers.^[5]

Specialisation and intensification of production[edit]

From 1962 to 2009, the arable land area decreased by an average of -0.3% annually.^[5] In contrast, during the same period, areas dedicated to meadows and pastures increased by an average of 0.1% per year.^[5] This trend is explained by the increasing importance of herbivore farming for milk and meat production from the seventies until the mid-eighties.^[5] The introduction of milk quotas at that time led to a slight decline in dairy cattle farming.^[5] From 1962 to 2010, the average annual milk yield per cow more than doubled, increasing from 3,320 kg in 1962 to 7,212 kg in 2010.^[5]

The annual agricultural censuses consider all farms, regardless of their nature. It is, therefore, necessary to differentiate farms according to the main technical-economic orientations (TEO) of the community typology introduced in 1985.

Change among livestock populations[edit]

Horses[edit]

The equine livestock stood at 4,054 animals in 1962 and 4,562 in 2009.^[6] However, the composition of the population has changed significantly in the meantime. In 1962, it mainly consisted of draft horses and horses destined for slaughter, and their numbers were decreasing (1,172 equines in 1972).^[6] The total number of equines then started to grow slowly, reaching 4,562 in 2009.^[6] However, the number of draft horses continued to decline. The increase in the stock results from a continuous rise in riding horses, which undoubtedly reflects the prosperity and increasing internationalisation of the resident population.^[6]

Cattle[edit]

The number of bovines increased from 159,083 animals in 1962 to 196,470 in 2009 (+23.5%).^[7] As for dairy cows, their number changed from 54,816 in 1962 to 44,310 in 2009 (-19.2%).^[7] In 2009, the percentage of dairy cows in the bovine herd was 22.6% compared to 34.5% in 1962.^[7] Economic conditions, climatic and geographical factors, and the European agricultural policy favoured the growth of both the bovine and dairy herds since World War II.^[7] The bovine herd increased from 124,230 animals on 1 December 1951, to 226,761 units on 15 May 1984.^[7] Dairy cows increased from 50,781 units on 1 December 1951, to 70,569 animals on 15 May 1984 (respective percentages of 40.9% and 31.1%).^[7]

The turning point in 1984 is marked by the changes in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the introduction of milk quotas aimed at reducing milk production. It was at this point that the decline in the dairy herd began. The total bovine herd fared better, with farmers tending to compensate for restrictions on milk production by increasing the number of cattle for meat production.^[7] With the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or 'mad cow disease') epidemic and the fluctuating meat prices, the bovine herd also began to decline.^[7]

Since 2006, there has been an increase in both the total number of bovines and the number of dairy cows. Thus, the only constant since World War II remains the decrease in the proportion of dairy cows within the bovine herd (from 40.9% on 1 December 1951, to 22.6% on 15 May 2009).^[7]

Pigs[edit]

In Luxembourg, pig farming is more of an ancillary production. More than other livestock activities, it is strongly influenced by fluctuations in producer prices and international markets.^[7] This explains why the pig population experienced cyclical variations in the 1960s and 1970s.^[7] Due to specialisation and a significant decrease in the number of pig farms, these cyclical variations diminished from the 1980s.^[7]

Some general trends can be identified. The pig population reached its highest level in 1957 with 128,726 animals and its lowest level in 1991 with 66,592 units.^[7] Looking at the fifty-year evolution under review, there is a general downward trend in the pig herd, coinciding with the increasing importance of the bovine herd.^[7] Since 1991, the number of pigs has been slowly increasing, and even the 2002 outbreak of swine fever did not have lasting repercussions.^[7]

Poultry[edit]

The poultry stock was 426,253 animals in 1962 and 97,418 in 2009 (-77.2%).^[7] The increasing material prosperity of the resident population promoted the consumption of beef at the expense of chicken.^[7] The production structure underwent profound changes during the period in question. In 1962, poultry farming was distributed among a large number of producers and constituted an ancillary production, for the farmers' own consumption.^[7] Due to international competition, with gigantic specialised farms producing at low prices, this farming became unprofitable.^[7] The lowest level was reached in 1995 with 55,618 animals.^[7] It was during the height of the 'mad cow' crisis that production resumed, and the population sought a substitute for beef.^[7] The 1990s saw the emergence of specialised farms for poultry farming, primarily for slaughter and egg production.^[7]

Rise of organic farming[edit]

Since the 1980s, numerous efforts have been made in terms of research, education, administration, agricultural advisory organizations, and the agricultural sector itself to improve the performance of agriculture in terms of the environment, animal welfare, and more recently, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. These efforts also aim to address consumer concerns regarding quality, environmental protection, and to sustain the flow of products from Luxembourgish agriculture to the local population. Gradually, many labels guaranteeing the Luxembourgish or local origin of products have taken into account criteria related to farming methods. Production methods compatible with environmental and animal welfare are privileged. Among these labels, organic farming holds a special place as it aims to minimise the use of non-organic agricultural inputs.

In the early 1980s, the first organic farms appeared in Luxembourg. In 1988, organic farming had less than ten producers.^[8] The establishment in 1991 (revised in 2007) of common legislation in the European Union on methods applicable to organic farming gave a new impetus to the development of this sector.^[8] It was only from 2000 that the number of participants in organic farming gained momentum, increasing significantly from 50 (in 2000) to 168 units (including 102 producers, 61 processors, and 5 importers) in 2011.^[8]

In 2011, among the 102 organic producers Luxembourg had 57 farmers, 15 beekeepers, 14 market gardeners, 8 fruit growers, and 8 viticulturists (compared to 31 organic producers in 2000 and 8 in 1988).^[8] In 2011, the areas dedicated to organic farming (existing and under conversion) amounted to 3,924 hectares compared to 368 hectares in 1988, representing an average annual increase of 10.8%.^[8] The proportion of agricultural land dedicated to organic farming remains modest, even though it multiplied by 7 between 1989 and 2009, increasing from 0.4% to 2.8%.^[8]

Changes in farms[edit]

During the second half of the 20th century, Luxembourgish agriculture, like all European agriculture, underwent a profound process of restructuring.^[9] This period involved the preparation and integration of Luxembourgish agriculture into the European Common Market.^[9] Throughout this time, Luxembourgish agriculture witnessed the disappearance of 8,000 farms, a reduction in the utilised agricultural area (UAA) by 6,000 hectares, a decline in the population and agricultural workforce, a surge in mechanisation, an increasing reliance on innovation through various new production methods and techniques, and a clear shift in arable crop production towards cattle farming and the emergence of organic agriculture.^[9]

A concentration process of farms and an increase in productivity occurred.^[9] From 1962 to 2009, the number of farms over 50 hectares increased sixfold.^[9] During the same period, their average size increased from 64 hectares to 104 hectares.^[9]

Declining share in the national economy[edit]

Agriculture's significance in the overall economy of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has greatly diminished since the 1960s, despite increasing productivity. In 1960, the relative share of agriculture in the sum of gross value added across all economic branches of the country was 7.4%.^[9] By 2010, this share had dwindled to a mere 0.3%.^[9] This decline is primarily attributed to the expansion of economic activities in the tertiary sector (banks, transportation, telecommunications).^[9]

During the same period, domestic agricultural employment decreased from 20,000 to 6,600 people, with its relative share in the total domestic employment of the economy dropping from 15% to less than 2%.^[9] In 1962, there was an average of 0.43 hectares of utilised agricultural land per inhabitant. In 2010, this figure had decreased to only 0.26 hectares.^[9]

This analysis primarily relies on the results of annual agricultural censuses and does not adequately consider the key role of agriculture in supplying the country with food and its environmental contributions.^[9] Additionally, it is important to note that agriculture generates a variety of economic activities both upstream (suppliers of agricultural goods and equipment, services provided to agriculture) and downstream (collection, preparation, processing, and marketing of agricultural food products).^[9]

Geographical changes[edit]

Since the 1950s, the concept of proximity to agricultural products is no longer relevant: the strengthening of rural exodus and the development of infrastructure have led to a decrease in the number of farms. Like its European Union neighbors, Luxembourg has adapted to changing demand and the environment: the significance of agriculture in the economic fabric has greatly diminished, while productivity has increased, particularly due to technological progress.

In 2009, Luxembourg agriculture represents less than 2% of the active population, and its contribution to gross value added is 0.3%. Concerning spatial distribution, the cantons seem to diverge: the landscape in the northern cantons is shaped by forests and crops, while those in the south are divided between meadows and orchards. Finally, the eastern cantons house the vineyards of the country.

Fewer and fewer farms...[edit]

Between 1962 and 2009, about 8,000 farms disappeared in Luxembourg: nearly 80% of the farms ceased their activities. While the decrease in the number of farms affected the entire country, it did not alter the spatial distribution across the cantons.

Similar to 50 years ago, the cantons of Clervaux, Grevenmacher, and Remich still have the largest share of farms. However, the share of farms in the Grevenmacher canton compared to the entire Grand Duchy has decreased since 1962, as has been the case in the Wiltz canton (a respective loss of 1,2 and 1,6 percentage points in 50 years). The decline in the number of farms is even more pronounced in the Luxembourg canton due to strong urbanisation in recent years: if in 1962, this canton's farms represented more than 8% of the total of Luxembourgish farms, they represented less than 6% in 2009.

Overall, the decrease in the number of farms has been much more significant than that of cultivated areas: agricultural production has concentrated, and the average surface area has increased.

... but an increasing average area[edit]

In 1962, farms with less than 2 hectares represented over 20% of the recorded farms. The fact that in 2009, they accounted for only about 10% shows the effect of modern agriculture on family farming. Indeed, this decrease goes hand in hand with a staggering increase in farms of 50 hectares and more: from less than 2% in 1962, the share of large farms (over 50 hectares) increased to over 48% in 2009. In 50 years, the average agricultural area per farm has quadrupled on average throughout the country, but the cantons have not benefited equally.

Thus, farms in the Esch canton and particularly those in the Remich canton, due in part to their structure (predominance of mining industries, vineyards), have not expanded as much as the rest of the farms in the country. On the other hand, farms in the Clervaux, Echternach, and to a lesser extent, the Redange cantons have significantly increased their average agricultural area. Luxembourg's agricultural production, therefore, comes from increasingly larger farms and concentrates in a decreasing number of farms: there is, as in the rest of Europe, a geographical concentration of agricultural production in Luxembourg.

Arable land gradually gives way to meadows[edit]

In parallel with this new type of farm structure, Luxembourg agriculture is characterised by the increasingly evident encroachment of meadows and pastures.

If this effect was observed in 1962 in the Capellen, Esch, Mersch cantons, and to a lesser extent in the Grevenmacher and Luxembourg cantons, only the Clervaux and Redange cantons escaped the "boom" of this phenomenon in 2008. However, in terms of the proportion of meadows and pastures in the total cultivated land, the Capellen canton is the only one to have experienced a slight decrease (-0.7%) in the last 50 years, while the most spectacular increases have been observed in the Diekirch and Echternach cantons, where the proportion of meadows has exceeded 10%. The need to feed the ever-growing cattle seems to have taken precedence over arable land. Finally, vineyards (other cultivated land) have lost some ground since the 1960s (less than 0.1%) in the Grevenmacher and Remich cantons.

Fewer farmers[edit]

In 2018, there were still 1,906 agricultural enterprises in Luxembourg, of which 20% were managed on a part-time basis.^[10]

In the year 2010, there were 1,981 such enterprises, employing 3,497 individuals (1% of the Luxembourgish active population).^[11] In 2004, there were 2,400, and in 1990, around 3,200. In comparison, in 1907, there were still 15,000 agricultural production units. This means that at that time, with family members included, almost 40% of the population was engaged in agriculture. As highlighted by Colin Clark, Jean Fourastié, and Walt Rostow, among others, the significance that agriculture still holds in a country, is characteristic of that country's level of economic development. In 2010, agriculture contributed only 0.3% to the Luxembourg Gross Domestic Product (compared to 2% in 1985).

Larger units[edit]

To remain competitive and viable, small farms have ceased their activities and diversified into other areas. Especially the younger generation has given up and have not remained solely on the family farm. As a result, the average size of agricultural enterprises has increased:

Average farm size (in hectares):

1980: 29.63
1990: 38.37
2000: 53.22
2001: 55.17
2002: 57.18
2004: 59.64
2010: 66.01

Since 2003, more than 50% of Luxembourgish farms have more than 50 hectares of land.

More specialised enterprises[edit]

Over time, farms have become more specialised. The traditional farm that provided for itself with a variety of products such as milk, eggs, meat, and field produce has disappeared. Except for dairy farming, which remains a primary activity in Luxembourgish agriculture, a significant number of farms have exclusively specialised in livestock breeding, field crops, fruit cultivation, or egg production.

Investments on the rise[edit]

Achieving competitive production was only possible through more intensive mechanisation. The government, the Ministry of Agriculture, and its agencies, such as the Administration des Services Agricoles or the European Commission, actively supported this by providing advice and financial resources, especially in the development of so-called farm development plans. To ensure a better and more efficient utilisation of capital investments in agriculture, the sharing of agricultural machinery was promoted. This aimed at the collective use of agricultural equipment.

No support, no go[edit]

In all countries, before the establishment of the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1958, agriculture benefited from national subsidies, primarily in the form of direct subsidies. However, after 1958 these were no longer allowed, as the EEC was built on the principle that all national measures distorting competition were prohibited. The responsibility for support measures was thus transferred to the Community, either through direct subsidies or by setting minimum prices tied to the implementation of a compensation system for the export or import of European agricultural products, both within the EU and with third countries. In other words, the prices of many agricultural products were decoupled from world market prices. This system has been and continues to be criticised, particularly by third countries like the USA. The process was accused of potentially leading to overproduction. This did indeed come about in the dairy sector was not exempt, and in 1984, the Community had to introduce a quota system for milk production. In short, agricultural policy has been 'communitarised' through the so-called Common Agricultural Policy. Its financial commitment is significant, and it remains the only such "common policy" within the European Community.

In 2010, Luxembourg disbursed (in euros):

34,5 million in direct payments to farms
15,6 million for compensatory allowances for disadvantaged areas
10,9 million in premiums for landscape maintenance
2,6 million for agricultural environmental measures
1,3 million for biodiversity conservation
0,6 million in direct aid for dairy producers^[12]

This amounts to a total of 65,5 million euros.

Professional training and representation[edit]

Agriculture, like everywhere else, benefits from strong support and structure:

Specific training and education opportunities for young farmers and gardeners (Agricultural School)
Collective use of agricultural machinery
Services provided by the Administration des Services Agricoles
Implementation of a reorganisation of land plots
Robust professional organisations, such as the Farmers' Central and the Farmers' Alliance,
Promotion through a system of privileged agricultural cooperatives, including Raiffeisen banks
Creation, within the Luxembourg system of occupational chambers, of an elected agricultural chamber

Resistance and adaptation to European integration[edit]

The primary sector, including agriculture and viticulture in Luxembourg, has displayed strong resistance to European integration projects. This resistance is primarily attributed to its poor competitiveness, stemming from the protectionist measures maintained since Luxembourg's participation in the Zollverein. Several historians have demonstrated the tactic employed by Luxembourgish political and farming representatives, which involves securing safeguard clauses at all costs for the benefit of Luxembourgish agriculture.^[13]

There is a continuity in Luxembourg's agricultural policy favoring the maintenance of protectionism. This is evident through the safeguard clauses obtained during intense negotiations with other member states, whether within the UEBL, Benelux, OECD, or the EEC.^[13]

Notes[edit]

^ German: Das Weiderecht ist ... den reichen Grundbesitzern von Nutzen, welche große Schafheerden halten, die zum Theil auf den Aeckern der Kleinbauern ernährt und gemästet werden. Aus diesem Grunde haben wohl auch die meisten Gemeinderäthe des Landes, die ja durchgehens aus den reichsten Grundbesitzern zusammengesetzt sind, sich in der von der Regierung veranstalteten Enquête fast einstimmig für Beibehaltung des Weiderechtes ausgesprochen
^ This was not the almost unanimous agreement that the Annales suggests

References[edit]

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j Theves 2005, p. 167.
^ Theves 2005, p. 167-169.
^ ^a ^b Theves 2005, p. 169.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g Theves 2005, p. 171.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k Casali & Haupert 2012b, p. 1.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Casali, p. 2
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ ^o ^p ^q ^r ^s ^t ^u ^v Casali, p. 3
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Casali, p. 4
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m Casali & Haupert 2012a, p. 1.
^ Hoscheid, M., 2019. Das Feld weiter beackern. Die Bauernzentrale begeht ihren 75. Geburtstag und blickt sowol in die Vergangenheit als auch in die Zukunft. Luxemburger Wort vum 28. November 2019, S. 6.
^ "Michèle Sinner "Wohl bekomm's". D'Lëtzebuerger Land Nr. 3, 3. Juni 2011, S. 12-13.
^ Rechenschaftsbericht, Landwirtschaftsministère; no Sinner 2011.
^ ^a ^b Grosbois 2008, p. 424.