in the age of U.S. farming before there were tractors and before there was electricity, how many workers did you need to operate, say, a 2000-acre farm? Is there a rule of thumb? As I understand it, most of the hardest work was done by farm animals - horses, oxen, donkeys, but humans had to care for those animals, including any livestock and whatever crops were grown on the farm.
In the US, in the 1800's, governments of frontier states or territories distributed land to settlers in 40-acre lots. (For those who are not familiar with the measure, that is 16 hectares. The lots were usually squares, 2 furlongs on a side. A furlong is very slightly more than 200 m.) I think that indicates what they thought was a reasonable size for a farm. Often a settler would buy two lots - one along the road and the one behind it - farming one, and using the "back 40" as a source of firewood.
I think that indicates what they thought was a reasonable size for a farm.
That should likely be qualified as to be operated by a single family.
There were much larger farms, even in the 19th century, and ranches could cover thousands of acres.
Diamond Porter 🚫
1/18/2025, 6:31:45 PM
@PotomacBob
In the US, in the 1800's, governments of frontier states or territories distributed land to settlers in 40-acre lots. (For those who are not familiar with the measure, that is 16 hectares. The lots were usually squares, 2 furlongs on a side. A furlong is very slightly more than 200 m.) I think that indicates what they thought was a reasonable size for a farm. Often a settler would buy two lots - one along the road and the one behind it - farming one, and using the "back 40" as a source of firewood.
In many western states it was 160-acre lots, 64 hectares per US citizen.
In many western states it was 160-acre lots, 64 hectares per US citizen.
Actually, it was per household. But there were a lot of sneaky ways to get around that.
But there were a lot of sneaky ways to get around that.
The dead-tree novel Centennial, written by James Michener and published in 1974, has a scene where a family sneaked around that.
That was a good book. There are a number of stories here on SoL that sneak around it too.
As a farmer I can tell you that your question is to broad and not easy to answer.
First an ACRE is 4,840 square yards or just picture an American football field and an acre is the width of the field by 90 yards.
What period are we talking about ? (until the industrial age most farms averaged less then 100 acres with most falling in around 10-40 acres)
What are the crops you are going to plant ?
What is your location and soil type ?
Are you starting a 2000 acre farm or is it all ready a working farm ?
This is what just flashed in my mind in the time it took to read your question and isn't even close to all the other items I'm think of now by the time it took me to write all this down.
But if you want something that is down and dirty it is believed that a single person could plow and plant 1 acre of corn in 1-3 days and harvest that acre in a week. They could then tend to about 10 acres a day during the growing season which for corn is around 4 months.
If you was growing something like potatoes it would take a person about a week to plant 1 acre but almost a month to harvest that 1 acre.
until the industrial age most farms averaged less then 100 acres with most falling in around 10-40 acres
The key word here is averaged which necessarily means larger farms existed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantation_complexes_in_the_Southern_United_States
A common definition of what constituted a plantation is that it typically had 500 to 1,000 acres (2.0 to 4.0 km2) or more of land and produced one or two cash crops for sale.
A plantation is a type of large farm. Granted they were largely dependent on slave labor, but that doesn't negate their existence.
Yes, I understand and agree that there where larger farms which is why I mentioned location.
In the southern USA they have a much longer growing season then the north does. Plus those plantations where only able to work due to the CHEAP labor they had available.
mate 1/4 of the farm of his father-in-law whose grandfather had bought the farm out of the mansion in 1888. (Russian empire's abolition of serfdom did grant peasants nominal freedom but did keep land property with the mansions still, so most peasants kept renting their ancient ancestor lands from the German invaders of thirteen century all the same.)
This (~160 acre) farm can be considered virtually ageless (easily ninth century onward) and functionally self-sufficient to an amazing degree, and evidently rich enough to buy itself from a profit of a couple decades. Since the family had no sons, just four daughters, it employed 3 paid men and one maid, for a total workforce of 5 men and 7 women. They had a stone-build deep-barn for 20 cows and 4 horses.
I would struggle to guess-count everything else, but at full realization it should have been able to be absolutely independent down to making it's own basic clothing from own linen and wool, only importing metal (tools and weapons), salt, and luxury goods. I suspect it would need at least a couple more workers for such in earlier centuries. Description of traditional households mention up to 20 arms-bearing men at one time (across all 4 generations present) but I suspect those huge households worked even more land as well. Servant-less nuclear family households did exist at all tim
There is considerable debate as to whether slave labor was actually cheaper than free labor. There is the cost of purchase of slaves and capital tied up in existing slaves who had to be kept productive even in bad economic conditions. Then there is the cost of maintenance of non-productive or minimally productive slaves. Free labor had none of these costs, but once the slave system was entrenched potential free laborers avoided the areas with large numbers of slaves.
I imagine that there was an intangible benefit of increased social status by ownership of a slave or increasing numbers of slaves as a way to display wealth. There was also the benefit that the labor couldn't decide to pack up and take off for a better situation.
Slave labor isn't and never was free labor and yes there was a cost to purchase and maintain. What made slave labor cheap was the amount of return the owner was able to get back in compare to what was needed to keep his work force fed, healthy, and housed. Not every farm or household in the south had slaves but the ones that did own slaves and to their high advantage when possible they hire out work crews to the farms that didn't have and needed the extra hands. This is how and what truly made slavery cheap and affordable.
I'm bit surprised why citation from my post, with regards a different region and system is in this discussion.
In our region, north Europe, Baltics, slavery in American understanding never existed, although tralldom did, but it is believed to be rare. The situation of serfs at times resembled slavery, but this differed much by region, century, and even lord by lord.
Traditional peasant homesteads had been independent since time immemorial, and in Finland had never been subjugated to serfdom.
Homesteads did employ hired workers living on premises, traditionally the servants end of the same house, under one roof, sharing the central kitchen. While rich host family may have enjoyed luxury of personal rooms on the masters end, servants typically settled in one large common room, limited privacy offered by mobile curtain dividers. There could be up to four families, as well as single men and women. Each of those families or individuals had a contractual relationship with the host family. In some cases those contractual terms could be functionally slavery, but such is believed to be rare. The contract could be ended by either side, either with previously negotiated expiration date, or by one year advance notice. Traditionally there was one day one day in the year servants moved from a host to host. Servants regarded agency in those moves, being free to choose available deals. In this regard mansion was just a large employer in competition with everyone else.
Relationship of homesteads with the native hill fort was that of a subject of taxation. With the arrival of Germanic crusaders in thirteen century nothing much changed, although Germanic mansions claimed formal ownership of all land. However, the taxation of peasants kept increasing, and notably, mansions had "work levies" where peasants were obliged to do certain amount of work for the mansion, such as work mansion's fields in priority to their own. Conditions forced during those work levies were sometimes indistinguishable from slavery.
Armed uprisings against unreasonable lords were often and often successful, some mansions were burned down with an amazing regularity. Retaliatory attacks by the standing army of whatever kingdom were treated the same way as wars rolling over with a regularity of their own -- by retreating to secret marshland or forest hideouts until the soldiers went away, then rebuilding from scratch if necessary.
Large peasants households were in some cases more wealthy than the mansion that "owned" them.
I don't know the answer, but if it's important, old census records could help.
Also, the mention of 1000 acre ranches. ranches are where livestock, usually cattle, were grazed, requiring less labor.
Also, the mention of 1000 acre ranches. ranches are where livestock, usually cattle, were grazed, requiring less labor.
There were plantations where cash crops were grown that were that large before the US Civil War.
The type of Farm, and the primary crop(s) matter quite a bit to determine an answer to your question.
A subsistence farm in Appalachia, New England, or the "Sod Busters" of the Great Plains would require the labor of one adult, or the entire family (typically of 6 to 12 adults and children). As mentioned elsewhere, this was typically around 40 acres; depending upon the quality of the soil, and the terrain.
New England soil was notorious for "growing rocks" (actually plowing the soil, combined with the freezing winters would result in rocks (from the size of a fist, to a large pumpkin) rising to the surface during the spring planting. Most of these rocks were used to build stone fences (more to do something about them requiring minimal effort. Resulting in smaller fields than most other regions of North America). We understand now (since c.1960's) why this occurred, but it was a mystery to folks in the 1600's to 1800's; many small farms were abandoned by folks heading West for better land.
(Poor) small farms were driven off of the fertile "Bottom Land" of Virgina (or the sandier soil of North Carolina) where they grew cash crops such as Tobacco. Rice, and then Cotton were the major cash crops in South Carolina and Alabama. Those poor farmers relocated into the Appalachians, where their airable land was broken up by steep slopes, and other terrain.
The Great Plains were arid, and until irrigation was used, most folk continued West to California, or Oregon (including what later became Washington state).
Subsistence farming was mostly vegetables, and tubers, in particular potatoes; potatoes and pumpkins were both discovered in the "New World" that quickly became staples of subsistence farmers in North America. Grains were also grown, both to make bread and porridge, and for animal feed. Chickens were common, and, if they could afford it, a couple of hogs (which could forage in the adjacent woods). A cow for milk, butter, and cheese, was an uncommon luxury. Mules or Oxen were more common than horses on the typical farm. However, it wasn't uncommon for at least one family in a community (or one amongst several nearby communities) to have a dairy, and another might breed horses. Mills, usually water powered, but possibly driven by oxen or a windmill, were common where grains were grown.
Grain has a number of likely problems. Storage of grain can be difficult, and there are numerous ways it can go bad, and it is vulnerable to rats and other pests. Grain is bulky and difficult to transport (even if ground into flour). This is why rural (western) New York, Pennsylvania, the Ohio valley, and other areas, often turned grains into Whiskey. Whiskey is much easier to store and to transport, and is worth more than the grain it comes from.
Flax was another crop that was commonly grown. Flax is a grain that may be eaten; it can also be used to make cloth.
Nearly all farms or Plantations that grew cash crops would also grow vegetables, and probably have chickens, and possibly hogs, a dairy cow, etc.
Roads were not efficient for the transportation of significant amounts of crops. Most plantations and large farms were near Ports on the Atlantic seaboard, or the Gulf of America (aka Gulf of Mexico). Navigable rivers, or canals (the Erie Canal was a major government project for commerce and to encourage Westward expansion) were the only practical means of transport for crops to Ports (all cities in the 1600's to early 1800's were ports).
Steam powered railroads c.1830 began expanding in the 1840's making the transportation of grain and other cash crops practical. Beef, dairy, and other foodstuffs began to be practical, instead or rare luxuries for the wealthy. {Citizens in the USA were considered wealthy by most people in Europe because of their luxurious diet, including meat. Americans c.1770 to 1840 were 4" or more taller and healthier than an average Englishman, and even more so than a Frenchman.)
McCormick Reapers and other horse (more other mule or oxen) drawn farm equipment allowed one man to harvest as much grain as a dozen men could. Seasonal laborers were hired to harvest crops. They would start in the north and work their way down south (regionally. In "Dixie" it was more common for slaves to be allowed to earn some money by working on other farms if everything was taken care of on their plantation; their owner would "of course" get a portion of their wages.)
In the US, in the 1800's, governments of frontier states or territories distributed land to settlers in 40-acre lots.
Coincidentally, my grandfather received 16h land as his wife's dowry in 1930-ies Latvia.
While that's a different region of the world, and a bit different age, the actual technology level employed didn't yet differ much.
Our land is mostly flatlands, with gentle rolling hills, a very fragmented mosaic of fields and forests. Not especially fertile, not tragically poor, and we have excess precipitation -- most of arable land should be ameliorated, and would rapidly return to forest if not worked on. Every single granite boulder is imported from Scandinavia by the ice age, but there's plenty of them. The climate was temperature oceanic with four distinct seasons of approximately even length; daytime temperatures approximated a sinusoid between +/-30°C (86/-22F) with maximum/minimum in July-August and January-February accordingly. Length of the solar day fluctuates from barely 6 hours at Christmas to full 18 hours at Midsummer.
He was able to subsist and profit from the land working it alone with his wife, with no children yet, driving butter and other produce 35km (22 miles) to the city market in his own horse-drawn carriage.
He planned to have 4 dairy cows, but only reached this "full" number twice for short periods, because the turmoil before and during WW2 resulted in multiple confiscations, second time he had all 4 cows during German occupation. (Eventually Germans conscripted him along with his horse.) He also had no less than 6 pigs, 30+ chicken, a dog, couple cats, half a dozen beehives, occasionally a few rabbits, but never a sheep or goats. He made his own firewood from woods on the property. The brook flowing along property border supplement some fish. Unfortunately, I can't quite break down what was he growing, but it included wheat (rye, barley, oats), potatoes, beets, carrots and more, but not linen. Instead, he experimented with growing medical herbs for cash since his wife was a knowledgeable witch.
***
Those 16h (40 acres) was approximate 1/4 of the farm of his father-in-law whose grandfather had bought the farm out of the mansion in 1888. (Russian empire's abolition of serfdom did grant peasants nominal freedom but did keep land property with the mansions still, so most peasants kept renting their ancient ancestor lands from the German invaders of thirteen century all the same.)
This (~160 acre) farm can be considered virtually ageless (easily ninth century onward) and functionally self-sufficient to an amazing degree, and evidently rich enough to buy itself from a profit of a couple decades. Since the family had no sons, just four daughters, it employed 3 paid men and one maid, for a total workforce of 5 men and 7 women. They had a stone-build deep-barn for 20 cows and 4 horses.
I would struggle to guess-count everything else, but at full realization it should have been able to be absolutely independent down to making it's own basic clothing from own linen and wool, only importing metal (tools and weapons), salt, and luxury goods. I suspect it would need at least a couple more workers for such in earlier centuries. Description of traditional households mention up to 20 arms-bearing men at one time (across all 4 generations present) but I suspect those huge households worked even more land as well. Servant-less nuclear family households did exist at all times too, either as starting or failing, but those unlikely worked more than 40 acres too.
in the age of U.S. farming before there were tractors and before there was electricity, how many workers did you need to operate, say, a 2000-acre farm?
Well, to start with there really was no such thing. The closest you would have found in that era to that size would not actually have been a farm, but a ranch. Where you would have an acre or so set aside for growing some crops for the household, the rest was for raising animals (primarily cattle).
The largest farms in the pre-industrial era in the US were in the SE USA. And most of them were in the range of 250-1,000 acres. Only the very largest of them would be around 1,000 acres. And the largest ones were normally had a significant part set aside for livestock breeding (cattle and horses).
In the pre-industrial era, large farms were simply so labor intensive that even a 1,000 acre "farm" with slaves found it very hard to make ends meet.
And that was something that even at the time of the Civil War was starting to be felt in the SE USA. California had a few large farms, and mostly used migrant workers to take care of them. And in that era, a "Migrant Worker" was generally not an immigrant. There were thousands of individuals (normally Americans) who moved from farm to farm, planting, taking care of, and harvesting the crops. Not being hired permanently by a farm, but coming in, doing a job for a wage, then moving on to the next farm.
The great Steinbeck novel "Of Mice And Men" and others actually discuss migrant workers in the early 20th century. And in the west where slavery was illegal they were normally more financially successful because they only paid them to do a job (normally planting and harvesting). Unlike with slaves, where they had to be fed and cared for year round, if there were crops to be worked or not.
But to give an idea, one of the most well known examples in the US would be Ingalls Farm. Charles Ingalls has multiple farms while his children were growing up, from Nebraska to the Dakotas. Most of them around 100-160 acres. And he himself did most of the work on them.
And with a horse or oxen drawn plow, that is no joke very hard work. The animal pulls it, but the human also has to put in a hell of a lot of work to actually keep the plow in the ground, and to keep the furrows straight.
But most farms would rotate 1 to 3 "cash crops", and once again have an acre or so as a truck garden for growing things for the household. Some herbs, vegetables, and root crops. A handful of chickens, and from one to four or five cows. But that would primarily be to help feed the family throughout the year, and not to make money.
But you also have a lively barter system. Where one farm that produced excess eggs might trade some with another that had a few apple trees for fruit. Or one that had multiple cattle so had excess cheese and butter would exchange with another that had excess potatoes for winter eating.