You are on page 1of 16

FINAL REPORT T O

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SOVIET AND EAST EUROPEAN RESEARC H

N
INPUTS

TN

ARESCHNOT :

EASTERN EUROPEA N

AGRICULTUR E

AUTHOR :

CONTRACTOR :

University of Chicag o

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS :

COUNCIL CONTRACT NUMBER :

DATE :

Arcadius Kaha n

Arcadius Kahan, D . Gale Johnso n

620- 8

June 15, 198 2

The work leading to this report was supported in whole or i n


part from funds provided by the National Council for Sovie t
and East European Research .

TILE

A RESEARCH NOTE ON INPUTS IN EASTERN EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE *

by Arcadius Kaha n

Based on preliminary analysis of data I have collected for inputs i n


East European agriculture, some general trends can be observed regarding th e
use of mineral fertilizers, agricultural machinery, land improvements, an d
others . This research reveals that despite increased investment in agricultur e
it will continue to be a problem area for East European countries, and they wil l
continue to be grain importers during the 1980s . Fertilizers are low-grade an d
costly ; labor productivity has grown very slowly ; and inputs in machinery hav e
not made up the deficiencies caused by the two former problems . This is all th e
more serious, since in all East European countries there has been a reduction i n
the area under crops in the last two decades .
Inputs in Mineral Fertilizer s
Mineral fertilizers play an important role among the imputs in th e
agricultural sector of the Eastern European countries . The soil quality o f
those countries makes it mandatory to use mineral fertilizer for both the replenishment of nutrients to restore the fertility of the soil, and for the in crease in crop-yields within an intensification of agricultural production .
In conjunction with the growth of mineral fertilizer application i n
the countries of Eastern Europe two questions have to be addressed and empirica l
evidence sought, namely what is the response of crop yields to the applicatio n
of mineral fertilizers, and how independent are the economies of Easter n
Europe in the production of mineral fertilizers .
There is a close correlation between the growth of crop yields pe r
unit of planted area, or arable land, and the growth of the output and the sup ply of mineral fertilizers to the agricultural sector indicative of a respons e
* Edited by the National Council for Soviet and East European Research,

-2-

of yields to mineral fertilizers . In fact the response to mineral fertilizer s


has been greater than in the Soviet Union, since the Eastern European countrie s
have usually more precipitation than the Soviet Union and the effectiveness o f
mineral fertilizers increases when combined with sufficient rainfall . Thi s
response of crop-yields to mineral fertilizers explains the continuous growt h
of their application in the East European countires, most of which have eithe r
exceeded the Soviet Union even in the per capita production of mineral fertilizers, or came very close to the Soviet level . In fact, by 1965, all had alread y
surpassed the Soviet Union in the application of mineral fertilizers per unit o f
*
arable land .
To the extent that all Eastern European countries experienced a reduction in the area under crops, the application of fertilizers also played the rol e
of a land-substitute .
The dependence or independence of the Eastern European countires i n
the area of mineral fertilizer supply has to be approached from two directions .
One is the degree of independence at the "finished product" level, the othe r
is the degree of independence with regard to the raw materials .
The demand of the East European countries for phosphate fertilizer s
is still being satisfied in part by imports from the Soviet Union . In addition ,
the Soviet Union is almost the sole source of the raw materials for the manufacture of phosphate fertilizers, including superphosphate and apatite ores whic h
make up the bulk of imports from the Soviet Union . Hard currency constraint s
were chiefly responsible for this situation . That the Eastern European countrie s
would perhaps coose to exercise some freedom of choice could be surmised fro m
attempts to import some phosphate rock from Morocco and Tunisia, or from th e
conclusion of a swap agreement by Poland with Occidental Petroleum which foresee s
*
See Narodnoe khoziaistvo SSSR, 1979, pp . 80-81, and Statisticheski i
ezhegodnik stran sev, 1979, p . 277 .

-3-

a barter exchange of Polish sulphur exports for phosphate rock (chiefly fro m
*
Florida) .
The phosphate fertilizers case thus represents perhaps the mos t
general and uniform pattern pertaining to both the imports and the inadequac y
of domestic production .
The potassium fertilizer industry in the Eastern European countries ,
except for that of the GDR, is of recent vintage . Czechoslovakia started on a
modest scale in 1961 and has been expanding operations slowly . Romania starte d
in 1969 and its domestic output is supplying about half of its deliveries t o
agriculture . Poland and Hungary began to produce potassium fertilizers aroun d
the middle of the 1970s, supplying domestically only a small fraction of thei r
consumption . Thus, for most of Eastern Europe potassium fertilizers have to b e
imported . However, the supply situation for potassium fertilizers differs fro m
that for phosphates with respect to the source of raw materials . The Sovie t
Union, in spite of its newly developed sources of raw materials for potassiu m
fertilizers in Belorussia (thus in greater proximity to Eastern Europe tha n
the apatite rocks or concentrates) is in no monopoly position in view of th e
very substantial export capcity of the German Democratic Republic . Thus, withi n
Eastern Europe there is a raw material supply source independent of the Sovie t
Union that could satisfy much of the needs of the Eastern European countries i n
the manufacturing of potassium fertilizers .
The largest in volume among the mineral fertilizers in Eastern Europ e
is the production of nitrogen fertilizers . During the last decade nitrogen fertilizer also grew fastest of all fertilizer types in terms of capacity and out put growth . But all countries of Eastern Europe, except for Romania, depen d
upon the oil and gas supplied by the Soviet Union as their basic raw materia l
for nitrogen fertilizers . The completion of the oil and gas pipelines fro m
the Soviet Union to Eastern Europe facilitated and perhaps cheapened the ra w
*
East-West Trade in Chemicals

(OECD! Pais ; 1980), Annex I, p . 1 .

-4-

materials for nitrogeneous fertilizer production .


Eastern Europe was relatively slow in improving the quality of th e
mineral fertilizers . Until recently Eastern Europe depended not only upo n
the raw materails from the Soviet Union, but also upon technology obtained fro m
the Soviet Union . In phosphate fertilizers it produced and consumed primaril y
single superphosphate with a low nutrient content . Among the products makin g
up the nitrogen fertilizers, ammonium sulphate and more recently ammonium nitrate prevailed and the production of urea and other combined fertilizers wer e
introduced rather late . Thus not only do the countries suffer from low-yieldin g
raw materials, but from the fact that transportation costs of the finished pro ducts are relatively high in comparison with high grade fertilizers . Appendi x
A provides raw data on mineral fertilzers, country by country .

Agricultural Machinery Input s

The study of inputs of agricultural machinery, completed for the "con ventional" inputs of tractors, grain combine harvesters, and lorries, should ultimately be expanded to include the other type of agricultural machinery use d
for technical crops and in livestock production . Since the share of technica l
crops and livestock in Eastern Europe is higher in the total agricultural out put than in the Soviet Union, these other types of machinery have to be include d
in the measure of capital and their effectiveness as a labor-saving device . Nonetheless, the study of "conventional" agricultural machinery reveals a tendenc y
toward larger and more powerful machines, while the tendency toward either growt h
in size or improved quality of the other types of machinery is as yet unclear .
Given the objective of releasing labor from agriculture and making i t
available for non-agricultural employment, capital for labor substitution in th e
form of agricultural machinery and the replacement of horse-power by mechanica l
power in the form of tractors (which also permit diverting feed from horses to

-5-

other livestock) were high on the agenda of the policy makers of the variou s
Eastern European countries .
Since the policy was initiated in the 1950s, at a time when it coincided with the Soviet effort to mechanize its own agriculture and used its out put of tractors and agricultural machinery domestically, the Eastern Europea n
countries were encouraged by the Soviet Union to develop their own tractor an d
agricultural machine-building industrial capacity and production . In a fashio n
typical for the self-sufficiency mentality prevailing during the 1950s and firs t
half of the 1960s all countries of Eastern Europe (with the exception of Czechoslovakia) went into the production of tractors and grain combine harvesters .
Tractor ploughs and tractor drills were also produced . However, tractor plough s
and drills do not require the same degree of tooling or construction of hug e
factories in order to achieve economies of scale as in the case of tractor an d
grain combine harvester production . For a number of countries such as the GD R
and Hungary the high point in the manufacture of agricultural machinery coincided with the years of massive collectivization--the late 1950s and early 1960s .
The GDR has since maintained its output of tractors and grain combines at a
level at or below its replacement needs, while Hungary abandoned the manufacture of grain combines and is winding down its production of tractors, tracto r
ploughs and tractor drills .
Thus, among Eastern European countries is the only one which decide d
to pursue both continuity in self-sufficiency and the status of exporter o f
agricultural machinery within Comecon and also outside . Czechoslovakia i s
specializing in the production of tractors,while Poland maintains its positio n
as a producer of a wide assortment of agricultural machinery which make he r
virtually independent of agricultural machinery imports, although she choses t o
export and import tractors simultaneously .

- 6-

Appendix B summarizes the production and the supply to agriculture o f


some of the major types of agricultural machinery in Eastern Europe for the period 1960 -1978 . By 1960 Eastern European countries treated as a whole were alread y
self-sufficient in the production of tractors (chiefly because of the abilit y
of Czechoslovakia to develop tractor production based upon its capacity in th e
production of automobiles ; Czechoslovakia accounted for almost fifty percen t
of the total tractors produced) . Over the years both Poland and especiall y
Romania expanded tractor production, with Romania and Czechoslovakia accountin g
for most of the export surplus . For grain combine harvesters, deliveries stil l
exceed the total domestic production indicating the need for imports, accounte d
for chiefly by Hungary and Bulgaria . The production data for tractor plough s
and drills exhibit both patterns of growth as well as patterns of replacemen t
needs which account in part for the fluctuations in output .
Further study should be made of the production and delivery pattern s
of such agricultural machinery types as beet and potato harvesters, corn an d
silage harvesters, in order to estimate the labor savings in the production o f
sugar beets, potatoes and feed, areas of very substantial labor inputs prio r
to the mechanization process in Eastern European agriculture .
It is also of some interest to ask whether one could detect meaningful deviations from the Soviet pattern which gives priority to crop productio n
and is still technologically backward in mechanization of livestock production .
Given the higher yields and productivity of livestock in Eastern Europe compared with the Soviet Union one should also detect the differences which ca n
be attributed to the levels of mechanization for which the use of the othe r
types of machinery are important . Needless to say, an evaluation of agricultural machinery which is an important component of the capital in agriculture would contribute to an independent check upon the officially reporte d
capital series .

-7-

The growth of the stock of tractors, grain combine harvesters an d


other types of agricultural machinery understates the growth of mechanica l
horse power, because the share of heavy tractors was rising compared to th e
smaller ones, and it obscures also the improvements of the quality of th e
various types of agricultural machinery . (Poland should be noted as an exception where a substantial number of small tractors are produced and supplie d
to private farms .) It is true that the quality is by and large still inferio r
to that which farmers in Western countries have access to and due to structura l
and organizational reasons the "life-span" of the machinery is relatively shorter, but qualitative improvements in agricultural machinery over the last twenty five years in Eastern Europe should not be ignored, even if they do not necessarily appear in the stock data .

Inputs for Land Improvemen t

While the basic data for inputs in land improvement (which include in vestments in irrigation, amelioration, liming, etc) are widely available and som e
are listed below, it is still difficult to estimate the impact of these investments, which constitute a growing share of total agricultural investments, upo n
the distribution of crops, double-cropping, and upon the yields of food, grains ,
feed and technical crops .
Among inputs directed toward the improvement of the utilized land are a
at least two types should be considered . One type is directed toward the maintenance of the existing quality of land and the other toward the improvement o r
transformation of the land which would result in a substantial increase of crop yields . An example of the first is the application of lime (CaO), an input whic h
is on the borderline between fertilizer application, in the technical sense, an d
the maintenance of the quality of the soils . For a number of East European countires, such as Poland ; the GDR., Czechoslovakia, and in part Hungary, liming of

-8-

the soils is a sine qua non in order to counteract their acidity . Thus periodic applications of lime are necessary to maintain the soil quality, and constitute good farm practice . The increase in the volume of lime applied indicates both the problem as well as the concern for its solution .
The second type of land improvement is represented by drainage, a s
well as irrigation, of cropland . Depending upon the conditions in each country the emphasis tends to be mostly on one of these two approaches . Although
the general data on acreage put under irrigation or acreage drained are availalbe, they are not sufficient as a basis of judgement about the costs an
. Additional work is needed to relate the data on irrigadbenfitsouchmears
tion and drainage with the shifts in the cropping of land, the phenomenon o f
double cropping in some areas, and the degree of actual utilization of th e
irrigation and drainage systems .
The phenomenon of double cropping is usually associated with sub tropical areas . However, in some countries of Eastern Europe double croppin g
is practiced on a substantial scale, depending upon the length of the growin g
season for various crops and availability of precipitation or irrigation . Th e
following table illustrates the relative importance of douple cropping for lan d
utilization in the GDR, Bulgaria and Romania .
Double Cropping in Percent of Total Planted Are a

Bulgaria
CzSSR
DGR
Hungary
Poland
Romania

1960

1970

1975

197 8

6 .9
n. a.
19 .3
3 .2
n. a.
2 .4

5 .8
2 .3
19 .8
1 .4
n. a.
6 .5

7 .6
1 .7
12 .4
1 .6
8 .0
9 .0

11
3
15
1
5
7

.7
.1
.O
.7
.8
.0

Energy Input s

Petroleum and petroleum products are consumed by the agricultura l

-9-

sector directly, as fuel for tractors and agricultural machinery, as well a s


indirectly as major inputs in such consumption categories as nitrogen fertilizers or electricity . Special attention should be drawn to the increasin g
share of agriculture in the consumption of energy . According to the calculations below, the use of energy in agriculture within the countries of Easter n
Europe has more than tripled since 1960, while the indirect consumption o f
electricity, via mineral fertilizers, increased at an even higher rate . Thus ,
the increased consumption of such scarce resources as fossil fuels has increase d
the real costs of agricultural production beyond the estimates of officia l
statistical reports of the East European countries .
The following table illustrates the growth of electricity consumptio n
by the agricultural sector in each of the Eastern European countries during th e
period following 1960 . It is interesting to note that one of the ways of economizing on resources to generate electricity was to include farms in the nationa l
grid, thereby dispensing with their own not very efficient electricity generatin g
facilities .
Electricity Consumption by the Agricultural Secto r
(in mill . kilowatt-hours )
1960

1965

1970

1975

197 8

Bulgaria
as % of total consump .

164
3 .9

455
5 .1

675
4 .0

955
3 .8

98 8
3.2

CzSSR
as % of total consump .

459
2 .2

1072
3 .6

1575
3 .8

2336
4 .3

275 0
4.4

as % of total consump .

1351
3 .4

1349
2 .5

1870
2 .7

3329
3 .9

378 3
3. 9

Hungary
as % of total consump .

85
1 .0

237
1 .9

867
4 .8

1633
6 .6

218 3
7. 3

Poland
as % of total consump .

600
2 .0

832
1 .9

1455
2 .3

2969
3 .1

432 5
3. 8

Romania
as % of total consump .

104
1 .4

271
1 .6

710
2 .2

2014
3 .9

261 0
4. 2

Total Eastern Europe


as % of total consump .

2763
2 .5

4216
2 .6

7152
3 .0

13236
3 .9

1664 2
4. 2

USSR
as % of total consump .

9970
3 .4

21099
4 .2

38552
5 .2

73804
7 .2

9564 2
8 .9

GDR

-10-

For some countries the data on petroleum consumption by the agricultural secto r
are either available or can be calculated . For other countreis estimates hav e
to be constructed .

Labor as an Input in Agricultur e

Preliminary research on labor, treated both as an input in agricultural production and as a source of income for the agricultural labor force an d
agricultural population, permits several general observations . As an input i n
production, research was directed toward a recalculation of the labor inputs ,
including both the quantitative and qualitative aspects . The phenomenon of out migration from the rural areas and the sharp numerical decline of the agricultura l
labor force, juxtaposed against the changing sex and age composition of the labo r
force and against training in skills and educational endowment of the labor force ,
indicate a somewhat smaller decline in the labor inputs than the one implied b y
the numbers of employed in agriculture . Within the context of incomes of th e
agricultural labor force, the wage reforms played in important role, but changin g
wage structure and the role of premiums and supplementary payments as incentive s
present a complicated picture . On the one hand, they are an admission that th e
period of abundant labor in agriculture is over as witnessed by the narrowin g
wage differentials between agricultural and non-agricultural work ; on the othe r
hand, they cast doubts about their effectiveness in inducing a greater labo r
effort .

Conclusions

In view of these problems in agricultural inputs, the participatio n


of East European countries in world markets as permanent grain importers is no t
only a phenomenon of the 1970s, but will persist also during the 1980s . But
the constraints upon particpation in the world market, such as foreign currency

-11-

and credit availability, differ among the countries, and will impose varie d
patterns of production and trade . This situation is complicated by the interesting issue of dependency of the East European countries upon the Sovie t
Union both as a market to obtain inputs and to sell agricultural products .
There are several areas of strong dependency, and some countries have attempte d
to decrease them by promoting interdependency among themselves . However, thi s
may turn out in a number of areas to be a less stable condition--vascillatin g
between pressure applied by the Soviet Union and the desired freedom to trad e
with the West .

Appendix Al

EASTERN
Year

1955
56
57
58
59
1960
61
62

Production

NITROGENOUS
EUROPE
Consumption

556 .4
597 .4
644 .2
741 .3
812 .9
903 .5

497 .2

943 .7
l,,009 .9

864 .0

530 .5
628 .4
672 .5
813 .1
850 .9

SOVIET
Surplu s
Deficit

156

15 .8
68 .8
- .2
52 .6

773
845

609
686

164

1,305 .4
l,417 .2

904
l,003

710

159
194

769

234

79 .7
54 .5

l,161
l,415

859
1,070

14 .7

l,759

-59 .1
-36 .2
-121 .5

2,099
2,712

1,360
1,759
2,282
2,656

3,753

l,573 .5
1,807 .l
2,091 .5

2,581 .0
3,009 .2

2,429 .7
2,687 .8

-5 .7
-151 .3
321 .3

3,319 .6

2,835 .l
2,930 .7

484 .5
621 .0

3 .203 .7

486 .6

3,355 .7
3,592 .2
4,033 .3

919 .l
1,327 .2

1975
76

3,921 .9
4,264 .7
4,952 .4
5,378 .6

77

5,564 .8

4,051 .4
4,100 .7

78
79
80

5,929 .0

4,529 .0

Production

552

1,537 .4
1,685 .6
2,085 .8

73
74

or

1,173 .4

1965

3,551 .7
3,690 .3

Consumption

Surplu s
Deficit

138

1,257 .5

71
72

TOTA L

UNION

479

1,088 .5

69
1970

Production

tons )

617
708

63
61

66
67
68

or

(1000

59 .2
66 .9

955 .4
1,073 .8
1,316 .6

FERTILIZERS

3,188
4,177
4,509
5,423
6,055

3,089
3 , 1+54
3,798
4,605
5,182

1,237 .4

197 . 2
222 . 9
179 . 8
227 . 8

302

1,358 .5
l,523 .l
1,619 .9
1,723 .0

345

2,425 .2

399
340

2,847 .5

2,025 .5
2,433 .8

3,356 .5
4,250 .2

3,075 .6
3,855 . 5

4,873 .8

4,463 .1

5,838 .5
6,758 .l

5,180 .3
5,883 .7

7,518 .2

6,485 .8

8,742 .9
9,607 .2

7,440 .l
8,112 .7

10,241 .2

8,827 .7

11,162 .9

9,611 .7

12,120 .7
13,487 .4

10,338 .2
11,372 .3

13,987 .6
14,610 .8

11,303 .4

2,115 . 1
2,684 . 2

11,622 .7

3,056 . l

15,228 .0

12,187 .0

3,041 . 0

430
532
664
723
711
818

566 .2

6,551
7 , 241

5,624
6,256

672 .4

7 , 856

6,746

l,110

8,535
8,609
9,114

7,339

l,196

7,252
7,522

1,357

9, 2 99
9,151

7,658
7,467

1,400 .0

9,76 .2
1,082 .5

1,586 .3
l,716 .9
1,906 .5
2,104 .4

873
927
985

1,464 .1

Consumption

Surplu s
Deficit

.l,592
l,641
l,68 4

193 . 8
286 . 6
381 . 4
399 . 7
413 . 7
280 . 9
410 . 7
658 . 0
871 `{
l,032 . 4
1,302 . 8
1,49 1 . 5
l,413 . 5
l .551 . 2
1,782 . 5

Appendi x A2
PHOSPHOROUS
EASTERN
Year

Production

EUROPE
Consumption

409 .6

FERTILIZERS

(in

1000

tons )

SOVIET UNIO N
Defici t
or
Surplus

Production

Consumption

TOTA L
Defici t or
Surplus

Production

Consumption

Defici t
r
surplus o

-59 .3
-87 .2
-93 .0

892 .3

841 .0

51 .3

1,242 .7

l,250 .6

-7 . 9

1,010 .1

921 .0

89 .1

1,386 .8

l,385 .0

1 .9

1,067 .9

-54 . 1

-64 .5

1,103 .0

38 .9
74 .0

l,543 .5

540 .5
660 .8

1,029 .0
1,029 .0

1,489 .4

1,579 .0

l,569 .5

9.5

-91 .6

1,130 .7

l,740 .8

-46 .7

1,192 .0

50 .7
104 .0

1,700 .0

703 .8

1,080 .0
1,088 .0

1,849 .2

l,791 .8

-41 .4

l,277 .8

1,149 .0

128 .8

2,021 .0

1,933 .7

57 . 3
87 . 4

27 .6

1,321 .0

1,188 .0

133 .0

2,177 .4

2,016 .8

16o . 6

57
58

350 .3
376 .7
1421 .5
476 .0

59
1960

569 .2
657 .2

61

743 .2

62

856 .4

784 .7
828 .8

63
64

928 .1

9 147 .5

-19 .4

l,475 .0

1,321 .0

154 .0

2,403 .l

2,268 .5

134 . 6

1,053 .0

1,118 .4

-65 .3

l,849 .0

157 .0

1,172 .4

1,280 .4

-108 .l

2,121 .0

179 .0

3,059 .0
3,472 .4

2,967 .4

1965

91 . 7
70 . 9

66

1,261 .7

l,319 .3

-57 .6

2,006 .0
2,300 .0
2,615 .0

2,425 .0

67
68

1,366 .0

1,544 .0

-178 .0

3,876 .7
4,040 .0

3,744 .3
4,055 .0

1,557 .3

l,801 .0

-243 .7

69
1970

1,721 .7

1,827 .7

4,435 .0
4,603 .7

1,883 .3

71

1955

56

464 .0
514 .5

3,401 .4

2,511 .0

2,634 .0

282 .0

4+,473 .3

-106 .l

2,77+ .0
2,916 .0
3,036 .0

190 .0
263 .0

2,776 .0

-88 .3
-70 .0

3,585 .0
3,802 .0

3,133 .0
3,475 .0

4,757 .7
5,468 .3

2,015 .8

1,971 .6
2,085 .8

260 .0
452 .0
327 .0

5,817 .8

5,560 .8

72

2,130 .1

2,168 .2

-38 .1

3,940 .0

3,661 .0

279 .0

6,070 .l

73

2,401 .8

-163 .3

4,261 .0

3,886 .0

2,541 .2

-161 .0

4,902 .0

1975

2,610 .8

-134 .6

5,511 .0

76

2,649 .5

-125 .2

2,7 4+9 .5
2,934 .0
2,857 .0

5,664 .0
6,024 .0

4,903 .0

77
78

2,745 .4
2,774 .8
2,893 .0

4,496 .0
4,728 .0

375 .0
406 .0
783 .0
761 .0

6,499 .5

74

2,238 .5
2,380 .2

5,829 .2
6,287 .8

5,104 .0

920 .0

8,773 .5

6,153 .0
6,344 .0

5,360 .0
5,480 .0

793 .0
864 .0

9,087 . 0

79
80

-143 .5

7,282 .2
8,121 .8
8,313 .5

9,201 . 0

5,104 .6

7,037 .3
7,473 .4
7,677 .8
7,997 .0

-40 . 9

132 . 4
85 . o
38 . 3
153 . 9
363 . 7
257 . 0
240 . 9
211 . 7
245 . 0
648 . 1;
635 . 8
X76 . 5

Appendix A3
[ASTERN EUROPE AND USSR :

PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION OF POTASSIUM

EASTERN EUROPE

1955
7
8
9
1960
1
2
3
4
1965
,6
7
8
9
1970
1
2
3
4
1975
6
7
8

U S S

Production

Con sumption

Surplus(+)or ,
Deficit(-)

1552000
1556000
1604000
1650000
1644000
1666000
1680700
1752000
1845000
1857000
1931500
2011500
2211800
2308900
2390700
2485600
2512300
2553500
2665800
3054600
3339600
3510300
3584000
3854000

837195
791952 *
935342 *
965634 *
1048661
1079597
1071833
1144067
1161228
1255574
1415305
1619142
1835943
1982690
2178994
2429965
2631463
2949516
2958920
3147246
3415853
3410195
3136414
3249000

+714805
+764048
+668658
+684366
+595339
+586403
+608867
+607933
+683772
+601426
+516195
+392358
+375857
+326210
+211706
+55635
-119163
-396016
-293120
-92646
-76253
+100105
+447586
+605000

*exluding Romani a

FERTILIZERS :

'Tons of Active Substance ( K 2 0 ))


TOTAL

Pro duction

ConSurplus(+)o r
sumption
Deficit(-)

789693
871187
960877
1004000
1029350
1084000
1145290
1330000
1400000
1894000
2368000
2636000
2868000
3123000
3244000
4087000
9807000
5433000
5918000
6586000
7944000
8310000
8347000
8193000

728000
756000
839000
743000
787000
766000
703000
826000
901000
1421000
1891000
1902000
2136000
2176000
2319000
2574000
2788000
3288000
3605000
3708000
5176000
5577000
5400000
534000

+61693
+115187
+121877
+261000
+242350
+318000
+442290
+504000
+499000
+473000
+477000
+724000
+732000
+947000
+925000
+1513000
+2019000
+2145000
+2313000
+2878000
+2768000
+2733000
+2947000
+2799000

Pro duction

Con sumption

Surplus(+)o r
Deficit(- )

2341693
2427187
2564877
2654000
2673350
2750000
2825990
3082000
3245000
3751000
4299500
4637500
5079800
5431900
5634700
6572600
7319300
7986500
8583800
9640600
11283600
11823000
11931000
12047000

1565195
1547952 *
1774242*
1708364 *
1835661`
1 845597
1774883
1970067
2062228
2676574
3306305
3521142
3971943
4158690
4497994
5003965
5419463
5787516
6563920
6855246
8591853
8987195
8536414
8643000

+77649 8
+87923 5
+79053 5
+94563 6
+83768 9
+90440 3
+105115 7
+111193 3
+118277 2
+107442 6
+99319 5
+111635 8
+110785 7
+127321 0
+113670 6
+158863 5
+189983 7
+219898 4
+201988 0
+278535 4
+269174 7
+283580 5
+339458 6
+3404000

Appendix
Production and

BULGARIA
Tractor Production
Tractor Delivery
Combine-Harvest Del .
Tractor Ploughs Prod .
Tractor Drills Prod .

Deliveries

of

Selected Agricultural

Machiner y

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

197 8

2,072
791

5,129
1,498
4,944
2,025

3,756
5,934
440
2,420
1,557

4,405
3,468
220
3,871
22,427

5,112
6,396
1,847
3,221
21,863

7,67 5
3,65 9
1,00 4
1,16 6
22,04 5

4,440
8,216
1,972
1,750
6,414
6,752

2,474
6,895
1,585
1,415
6,001
8,534

6,298
11,399
900
1,781
4,916
3,320

4,000
9,436
1,500
1,440
2,552
3,140

3,40 0
8,47 6
3,00 0
38 1
3,43 2
2,26 2

2,649
10,165
2,26 6
1,475
424
848

2,961
7,525

1,930
9,427

551
5,821

40 0
4,20 0

1,166
3,178

1,513
2,096
1,450

1,887
3,073
1,055

2,24 2
35 7
18 0

19,455
3,840

21,622
23,435
1,781
1,492
28,765
8,667

40,998
27,182
2,155
2,009
28,099
3,221

47,553
41,976
3,591
2,824
41,434
1,030

59,52 2
58,47 1
4,30 1
3,96 0
33,05 2
10,72 1

17,102
11,556
5,500
5,470
15,692
14,322

15,836
9,657
2,012
1,999
9,270
3,024

29,287
11,993
1,179
1,075
11,414
11,721

50,003
11,890
5,659
5,574
19,883
25,448

65,71 5
14,75 8
3,88 7
3,72 0
15,22 8
23,20 7

32,492
15,505
1,250
20,831
3,782

30,534
15,142
3,726
6,185
1,100

18,480
8,330
1,500
3,238
5,173

29,585
9,565
2,589
3,235
4,955

35,31 8
8,89 7
1,22 7
1,00 1
3,54 7

2,452

CD R
Tractor
Tractor
Combine
Combine
Tractor
Tractor

Production
Delivery
Production
Delivery
Plough Prod .
Drills Prod .

6,142

1,053
2,390

HUNGAR Y
'Tractor Production
Tractor Delivery
Combine Production
Combine Delivery
Tractor Plough Prod .
Tractor Drill Prod .

4,659
6,613
1,535
380
149

POLAND
Tractor
Tractor
Combine
Combine
Tractor
Tractor

Production
Delivery
Production
Delivery
Plough Prod .
Drill Prod .

8,052
6,800
300
1,000

ROMAN I A
Tractor
Tractor
Combine
Combine
Tractor
Tractor

Production
Delivery
Production
Delivery
Plough Prod .
Drill Prod .

3,500
2,671

2,006

566
1,428

8,673
9,800
564

CZECHOSLOVAKI A
Tractor
Tractor
Combine
Tractor
Tractor

Production
Deliveries
Deliveries
Plough Prod .
Drills Prod .

12,570
5,310
1,443
7,160

Total Eastern Europ e


Tractor
Tractor
Combine
Combine
Tractor
Tractor

Production
Deliveries
Harvester Prod .
Harvester Del .
Plough Prod .
Drills Prod .

34,923
1,840
3,790
15,585

65,356
60,371
10,302
11,443
67,760
31 ; 569

77,183
68,588
5,378
10,238
55,819
22,882

101,298
71,799
4,234
8,098
53,634
47,31 .2

146,804
85,084
10,750
16,170
73,398
57,491

172,03 0
98,46 1
11,18 8
12,53 4
54,23 6
61,962