French Agriculture and Population

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


M. de la Trahonnais has communicated to the Society of Arts at Paris a paper on the agriculture and population of France, in which he takes the position assumed by Mal-thus, that the increase or decrease of population is exactly in the same ratio as the increase or decrease of the production of food, and ascribes the late lamentable surplus of deaths over births to the insufficiency in the supply of food. The distinguished agriculturist mentions that since 1850 a gradual diminution in the number of births in France has taken place, and that in two years (1854-'55) the statistics exhibit the mournful fact that while every country in Europe showed a comparatively large increase of population, the numbers of the French people had actually diminished by 106,000. In 1856, the importation of agricultural produce, including cattle and meat, amounted to 30,560,000 pounds; and from this fact may be derived the most accurate agricultural statistics in relation to the agricultural deficiency in France during that year. This continued deficiency in food M. de la Trahonnais attributed to many causes. The manufacture of agricultural implements scarcely exists as an industry in France. The rude implements used by the peasantry are generally manufactured by village mechanics, from old and unimproved patterns, handed down from generation to generation, whilst the annual conscription of 400,000 able and robust young men for the army produces a lamentable deficiency of male labor, and necessarily leaves a large amount of agricultural development to the feeble hands of women and old men. It is not denied that the French peasantry are sound and industrious ; their vices are, no doubt, the result in which the system of centralization has abandoned them. They are patient, sparing, religious, and highly moral. Once get the thin edge of progress into their traditions ; let a gleam of enlightenment kindle their hard and miserable career ; let a little more comfort cheer their homes ; let a more extensive range of ambition widen their sphere of activity ; let a little more capital improve their land ; in short, let them be freed from the burdens and encroachments of government, and encouraged and educated as in other liberal countries, and the French nation will rise great and powerful in the strength of its peasantry and agricultural wealth.

Scientific American Magazine Vol 13 Issue 36This article was published with the title “French Agriculture and Population” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 13 No. 36 (), p. 285
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican05151858-285c

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe