>>Dr. Shilling said
>> since the turn of the century the American Farm has become 17X more
>> productive in spite of a 80% loss of farmers.

        In the early 1970s two separate groups researched this type of
question in the USA, led by Eric Hirst at Oak Ridge and John Steinhart at U
Wisc, Madison (the latter pubd in _Science_).  They independently concluded
that although the farm population had sunk markedly (glimpsed in e.g.
Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath) the total labour in the USA food SYSTEM
had not.  "Yesterday's field hand is today's canning factory worker,
tractor mechanic, or fast food carhop"  -  if I recall accurately
Steinhart's memorable summary.


>  Beekeeping however saw its
>> big productivity changes in the late 19th century and hasn't see real
>> productivity change since.

        The term 'productivity', and even more the term 'efficiency',
should always be scrutinised.  They are ratios - but from one use to
another their defns vary.  One has to take care to be clear what is being
defined  e.g. labour per unit material produced, or labour per dollar
profit, or labour per dollar of capital.  Unfortunately, all of these defns
have been used, and it is not always evident which is meant.  Wielders of
the depraved trade known as economics are good at sleight of hand in
changing defns, unannounced, to suit their clients' purposes.  I don't
suggest anyone was pulling such stunts on us; I merely point out ambiguity.

R