Idle Farming Empire 1.41.3 (MOD Coins, Unlocked) Apk for Android Free Download. Version: 1.41.3 for Android. Updated On: Mar 18, 2020. Just wait for all the plants to create their farm, raise your animals and then grow. Idle Farming Empire is an iPhone and Android Games App, made by Futureplay.Today, it has gone through many interations by the developers - Futureplay, with the latest current version being 1.41.4 which was officially released on 2020-03-31.

The Virgin Lands campaign (Russian: Освое́ние целины́, romanized: Osvoyeniye tseliny, lit.'reclamation of tselina'; Kazakh: Tyń ıgerý, [təŋ ɪjɡeɾʏw]) was Nikita Khrushchev's 1953 plan to dramatically boost the Soviet Union’s agricultural production in order to alleviate the food shortages plaguing the Soviet populace.

History[edit]

In September 1953 a Central Committee group – composed of Khrushchev, two aides, two Pravda editors, and one agricultural specialist – met to determine the severity of the agricultural crisis in the Soviet Union. Smash up movie. Earlier in 1953, Georgy Malenkov had received credit for introducing reforms to solve the agricultural problem in the country, including increasing the procurement prices the state paid for collective-farm deliveries, reducing taxes, and encouraging individual peasant plots. Khrushchev, irritated that Malenkov had received credit for agricultural reform, introduced his own agricultural plan. Khrushchev's plan both expanded the reforms that Malenkov had begun and proposed the plowing and cultivation of 13 million hectares (130,000 km²) of previously uncultivated land by 1956. Targeted lands included areas on the right bank of the Volga, in the northern Caucasus, in Western Siberia, and in Northern Kazakhstan.^[1] The First Secretary of the Kazakh Communist Party at the time of Khrushchev's announcement, Zhumabay Shayakhmetov, played down the potential yields of the virgin lands in Kazakhstan: he did not want Kazakh land under Russian control.^[2]Molotov, Malenkov, Kaganovich and other leading CPSU members expressed opposition to the Virgin Lands campaign. Many saw the plan as not economically or logistically feasible.^[3] Malenkov preferred initiatives to make the land already under cultivation more productive, but Khrushchev insisted on bringing huge amounts of new land under cultivation as the only way to get a major increase in crop yields in a short amount of time.

Instead of offering incentives to peasants already working in collective farms, Khrushchev planned to recruit workers for the new virgin lands by advertising the opportunity as a socialist adventure for Soviet youth. During the summer of 1954, 300,000 Komsomol volunteers traveled to the Virgin Lands.^[4] Following the rapid Virgin-Land cultivation and excellent harvest of 1954, Khrushchev raised the original goal of 13 million new hectares of land under cultivation by 1956 to between 28–30 million hectares (280,000–300,000 km²).^[5] Between the years 1954 and 1958 the Soviet Union spent 30.7 million rubles on the Virgin Lands campaign and during the same time the state procured 48.8 billion rubles worth of grain.^[6] From 1954 to 1960, the total sown area of land in the USSR increased by 46 million hectares, with 90% of the increase due the Virgin Lands campaign.^[5]

Overall, the Virgin Lands campaign succeeded in increasing production of grain and in alleviating food shortages in the short term. The enormous scale and initial success of the campaign were quite a historical feat. However, the wide fluctuations in grain output year to year, the failure of the Virgin Lands to surpass the record output of 1956, and the gradual decline in yields following 1959 mark the Virgin Lands campaign as a failure and surely fell short of Khrushchev's ambition to surpass American grain output by 1960.^{[7][need quotation to verify]} In historical perspective, the campaign laid the ground for a recovery of wheat production in post-independence Kazakhstan.^{[8][need quotation to verify]}

Yearly Virgin Land performance[edit]

1954[edit]

The first Virgin Land harvest exceeded expectations. The total output of grain for Virgin Land regions in 1954 was 14,793,000 tons greater and 65% higher than the average grain yield for the period of 1949–1953. By the start of 1955, 200,000 tractors had been sent to the Virgin Lands, 425 new sovkhozy had been created, and a total of 30 million hectares (300,000 km²) of land had been ploughed up, 20 million of which were put under crop.^[5]

1955[edit]

The 1955 Virgin Lands crop fell far below expectations due to a severe drought in the virgin land regions, especially Kazakhstan, which received only one-tenth of its normal rainfall. Even though the total sown area in 1955 was almost double that of 1954, the grain harvest went down by 35% from 1954 in Kazakhstan. However, other regions of the Soviet Union had a particularly good year, which offset poor Virgin Land performance and resulted in an overall increase in grain harvest for the Soviet Union. Khrushchev was forced to acknowledge the validity of some of the opposing viewpoints regarding the Virgin Lands campaign but he maintained that as long as two harvests in a five-year period were good, the plan would be a success in terms of recovering costs and making a profit.^[5]

1956[edit]

Enthusiasm over the Virgin Lands campaign dampened after the poor harvest of 1955. Much less new land was put into cultivation in 1956. However, the harvest of 1956 proved to be the most successful of the entire Virgin Lands campaign, and the largest harvest in Soviet history up to that point. Grain output for Virgin Lands regions increased by 180% compared to the average of 1949–1953 and 90% compared to the 1954–1955 average. The grain output in 1956 of the entire Soviet Union was 50% higher than the 1949–53 average.^[5] Encouraged by the success, Khrushchev went on a tour through the Virgin Land regions awarding medals to farmers.^[9]

1957[edit]

The 1957 harvest was a failure. Virgin Land's grain output decreased 40% from 1956, and 18% for the total Soviet Union grain output.^[5]

1958[edit]

In 1958 and 1959 there was almost no new land ploughed up in Virgin Land regions. The 1958 harvest was a particularly good one, reaching 58,385,000 tons of grain, only 8% below the record of 62,263,000 tons set in 1956.^[5]

1959[edit]

The 1959 growing season was extremely rainy, causing many difficulties. However, the harvest was not disappointing. The Virgin Land crop in 1959 was 54,571,000 tons, only 6% lower than the 1958 harvest.^[5]

1960[edit]

The two good harvests of 1958 and 1959 gave the campaign a new boost of support. 1,648,000 hectares (16,480 km²) of new Virgin Land were plowed in Kazakhstan alone.^[5] Khrushchev organized one of the most important Virgin Lands regions into an administrative unit called Tseliny Krai, a territory consisting of five provinces in northern Kazakhstan. The capital, originally Akmolinsk, was renamed as Tselinograd, or Virgin Land City. However, the year of 1960 ended up being one of the worst years for agriculture during the program.^[10]

1961–1963[edit]

Productivity of the Virgin Lands underwent a steady decrease following the harvest of 1958. In 1963 Khrushchev began an initiative to widely expand fertilizer production and availability throughout the Soviet Union in order to increase the productivity of the Virgin Lands. The USSR only possessed 20 million tons of fertilizers for every 218 million hectares (2,180,000 km²) as opposed to the United States, which possessed 35 million tons of fertilizer for every 118 million hectares (1,180,000 km²) of land. Khrushchev ordered 60 new fertilizer factories to be built.^[11] Even so, the productivity of the Virgin Lands continued to decline and never got close to replicating the record harvest of 1956.

Major challenges[edit]

Poor living conditions and manpower shortages[edit]

Virgin Land areas were mostly rural settlements with small populations. The incredible speed with which Virgin Land workers were recruited and transported to the Virgin Lands created major housing and food shortages. Battle run campground reservations and prices. The poor living conditions caused many workers to quickly pack up and leave within the first months to years of arriving in the Virgin Lands. The number of workers on the state farms in Kazakhstan increased by 322,000 from 1954–1957, but in this time only 1,800,000 m² of housing was built.^[5] The people who were attracted to the Virgin Land settlements were young men from poor villages, orphans, and released prisoners because even though the living conditions were poor, it was still an improvement in their lifestyles. While the food shortages in Virgin Land settlements were solved by 1956, the housing problem remained an issue past the end of the 1950s.^[6]

As a consequence of the poor living conditions and constant out-migration, there were shortages of workers on the new Virgin Land state farms. Between 1957–1960, 24,000 specialists of all disciplines were sent to work in the Virgin Land districts of Kazakhstan, and during the same time period 14,000 specialists left due to poor living conditions.^[5] Additionally, the workers who did stay were mostly young and inexperienced, lacking the skills to work the machinery and farm efficiently. To deal with the issue, a decree was issued in Kazakhstan at the end of 1959 that ordered the full-time training of 65,000 new tractorists and an additional 50,000 in off-duty time. However, due to resource restraints, less than half that number received training. As a short-term solution, the government began paying about 250,000 experienced farmers per year from southern regions of Kazakhstan to come to work in the Virgin Lands after they completed their own harvests.^[5]

Machinery and repair shop shortages[edit]

Despite Khrushchev’s efforts to adequately supply the Virgin Land provinces with farm machinery by sending nearly all newly manufactured equipment and commandeering machinery from other areas of the Soviet Union for Virgin Land areas, there were still major shortages of farming machinery. For example, in Kazakhstan in 1959, there was only 1 tractor for every 218 (2.18 km²) hectares of land.^[5] The problem was simply that the agricultural machinery industry in the Soviet Union was not capable of producing the amount of machinery demanded by sudden expansion of land under cultivation. Furthermore, machinery parts and the facilities and professionals needed for tractor repair were also in short supply, resulting in machinery going unused even when all that was needed was a simple, cheap repair.^[5]

Climate[edit]

The dryland conditions in the Virgin Land areas, especially Kazakhstan, were not conducive to monoculture farming. The area got only 200 to 350 mm of rain yearly and the majority tended to fall in July and August, when the grain was ripening and at harvest time, whereas drought usually occurred in spring when the immature shoots needed the most water. Furthermore, the vegetation period was short and the area was prone to cold spells and frosts as late as early fall. Strong winds blew snow from the fields in winter and caused soil erosion in the spring. The soil was also characterized by high salt content. The intensive monoculture farming of the Virgin Lands campaign, with 83% of the total cropland in 1958-1959 being covered by grain, depleted the soil of necessary nutrients.^[7] This is likely one of the major causes for the gradual decrease in Virgin Land productivity after 1959.

Inadequate grain storage facilities[edit]

Very little infrastructure existed in the Virgin Land provinces prior to Khrushchev’s announcement of the campaign. Consequently, when harvesting began there were minimal storage facilities for the crops. This caused substantial amounts of the crop yield to be left in the fields to rot. Furthermore, lack of storage facilities caused farmers to hastily harvest the entire crop during suitable weather, leading to ripe and unripe grain often being mixed together. This raised the moisture content and caused the grain to spoil. The loss of spoiled grain in this manner (referred to as dockage) often accounted for the loss of 10-15% of crop output.^[7] Harvests in Kazakhstan in 1956, 1958, and 1959 respectively were 23.8, 21.9, and 19.9 million tons of grain, whereas the storage capacity of Kazakhstan in 1960 was only 10 million tons of grain.^[5]

Commemoration[edit]

A minor planet, 2111 Tselina, discovered on 13 June 1969 by Soviet astronomer Tamara Mikhailovna Smirnova is named to commemorate the 25th anniversary of virgin soil development in the USSR.^[12]

See also[edit]

• Great Leap Forward, contemporary program in the People's Republic of China
• Tanganyika groundnut scheme, a failed 1950s agricultural program in the British Empire

References[edit]

1. ^Taubman, William (2003). Khrushchev: The Man and His Era. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. pp. 260–262. ISBN978-0393051445https://archive.org/details/khrushchevmanhis00taub/page/260 url= missing title (help).
2. ^Compare: Medvedev, Roy Aleksandrovich (1983). Khrushchev. Translated by Pearce, Brian. Anchor Press/Doubleday. p. 78. ISBN9780385183871. Retrieved 8 September 2016. Among the most strident opponents of the measure were the leaders of the Kazakh Communist Party, First Secretary Shayakhmetov and Second Secretary Afonov, who were well aware that the virgin lands in northern Kazakhstan were used by the Kazakhs as pasture [..].
3. ^Taubman (2003), p. 262.
4. ^Taubman (2003), p. 263.
5. ^ ^{abcdefghijklmno}Durgin, Jr., Frank A. (1962). 'The Virgin Lands Programme 1954-1960'. Soviet Studies. 13 (3): 255–80. doi:10.1080/09668136208410287.
6. ^ ^abPohl, Michaela (2008), 'The 'planet of one hundred languages'', in Schrader, Abby M.; Sunderland, Willard; Breyfogle, Nicholas B. (eds.), Peopling the Russian Periphery: Borderland Colonization in Eurasian History, London: Routledge, pp. 238–57 [256]
7. ^ ^abcZoerb, Carl (1965), 'The Virgin Land Territory: Plans, Performance, Prospects', Soviet Agriculture: The Permanent Crisis, New York: Published for the Institute for the Study of the USSR in cooperation with the University of Kansas by F. A. Praeger
8. ^Petrick, Martin; Wandel, Jürgen; Karsten, Katharina (March 2013). 'Rediscovering the Virgin Lands: Agricultural investment and rural livelihoods in a Eurasian frontier area'(PDF). World Development. 43: 164–179. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.09.015. hdl:10419/150012.
9. ^Taubman (2003), p. 303.
10. ^Taubman (2003), p. 516.
11. ^Taubman (2003), p. 606-607.
12. ^Schmadel, Lutz D. (2003). Dictionary of Minor Planet Names (5th ed.). New York: Springer Verlag. p. 171. ISBN978-3-540-00238-3.

Greg Tylka was puzzled.Actually, that’s putting it mildly. Tylka, an Iowa State University (ISU) Extension nematologist, coordinated a 2019 yield and soybean cyst nematode (SCN) trial in a southeastern Iowa field supported with funds from the Iowa Soybean Association. At planting, the field had moderate levels of eggs that could key an increase in SCN numbers during the season.The trial compared yield and resistance levels of the following:. 67 SCN-resistant varieties with the widely used PI 88788 resistance line.

This resistance is used in approximately 95% of SCN-resistant soybeans. Two varieties with the less-common Peking-based SCN resistance. Three susceptible varieties with no SCN resistance.Soybean yields from the PI 88788-based SCN-resistant varieties widely varied – from a low of around 41 bushels per acre to 58.7 bushels per acre. Average yields tallied 51.2 bushels per acre.Not surprisingly, yields of susceptible varieties averaged 41.8 bushels per acre, although one yielded around 54 bushels per acre.What stunned Tylka, though, were the 71.3- and 75.5-bushel-per-acre yields of the varieties with Peking-based resistance. The average of 72.4 bushels per acre dwarfed the 58.7 average of the varieties with PI 88788 resistance.

At a $9 per bushel price, the 13.7 bushel per acre average yield difference made a $123.30-per-acre difference. There’s more. The farmer who hosted the SCN experiment on his farm grew two different SCN-resistant PI 88788 soybean varieties in the remainder of the field.

Those varieties averaged a yield of 50 bushels per acre.Had he subbed one of those soybean varieties with one variety with Peking SCN resistance, the 22-bushel-per-acre difference would have magnified returns by around $200 per acre.Why the Yield Increase?' We’ve been doing these variety trials for 30 years,” says Tylka. “For the past two decades, we have always planted two to four Peking varieties.”That’s because they were the only Peking varieties available. Nearly all SCN-resistant varieties are based on the PI 88788 breeding line. Meanwhile, Peking varieties are rare, although more firms are selling them. “At first, Peking varieties were in the middle of the pack, from the highest yielding to the lowest,” says Tylka.

“They have gotten progressively better relative to the PI 88788 varieties.”Two FactorsTylka reasons that’s due to two factors:1. Seed companies are boosting yield potential of Peking varieties.2. SCN is dragging down the yields of PI 88788-resistant soybean varieties.Ever had waterhemp that resists glyphosate and other herbicides in your field? The same thing happens in SCN-infested fields where farmers continually plant soybeans steeped in PI 88788 resistance. Eventually, SCN resists the PI 88788 resistance. “We really need to evolve the conversation into whether SCN is actually resistant to the resistance farmers are planting,” says Don Kyle, a Corteva Agriscience soybean breeder.The ISU trial occurred in sandy soils, where SCN is particularly damaging.

Still, it’s a vision of the future as more SCN populations resist PI 88788 resistance, says Tylka.“If you get a hot, dry year in central Illinois or north-central Iowa, similar results will happen,” says Tylka. “In the short term, a simple fix is to start growing Peking soybeans where SCN is present. Farmers should ask seed companies for these varieties.”Not So EasyStill, it’s difficult for companies to redirect their breeding program to include a new source of resistance. Tylka has discovered is real,” says Jim Schwartz, director of Practical Farm Research and Agronomy for Beck’s. That’s changing, though. “In the last couple of years, we have seen a handful of lines with Peking resistance that have made the cut and are now being commercialized,” he says.In Corteva’s case, Kyle says its flagship Pioneer brand offers 25 varieties with Peking resistance – many that have a wide area of adaptation.

Duncanson agrees with the industry trend. “We can get some Peking varieties in high-yielding genetics,” he says.Farmers who want Peking-based varieties have to ask for them, though. “I have not had any trouble getting them in recent years,” says Ron Heck, a Perry, Iowa, farmer.Still, Peking varieties are brand specific. “Not every brand has Peking varieties available,” says Duncanson. Companies are launching other new sources of SCN resistance. In 2021, Syngenta plans to launch two new varieties with the PI 89772 source of SCN resistance, says Travis Kriegshauser, Syngenta strategic marketing manager for soybeans.Where to StartBefore you begin any SCN management steps, though, sample your fields for nematodes.“One blind spot for farmers is that without sampling, they don’t know exactly how many nematodes are out in their fields,” says Kyle.Other tools besides alternative sources of resistance are seed treatments.

Seed treatments that aim at sudden death syndrome (SDS) like Ilevo and Saltro also have activity on SCN. “They will slow the yield decline and prop up PI 88788 resistance,” says Tylka.

“But they are not a substitute for Peking resistance.”. Seed treatment use on PI 88788-resistant soybeans while diversifying into Peking resistance and diversifying crop rotations with corn-after-corn and peas has helped Duncanson stave off SCN.“We have been fighting this since the mid-1990s,” he says. “But we tested quite a few acres in 2018 and were happy to find our (egg) numbers were still low. By doing preventive steps, we can keep our (SCN) numbers low.

We may never see a $200 difference due to planting Peking varieties, but we hope to never get into a situation where we have poor yields to begin with.”.