Redactive analysis: Notice that in the same verse we see both the sowing and the reaping of the harvest. This is a clear indication that the text is being written after the fact. While this is still holographic Nephi, it is not a current journal. Nephi writes on these plates as he has time available. This section on the beginnings of the Nephite people is certainly written a number of years after the separation. This account is personal recollection, not an accounting of events at the time that they occur.
Historical analysis: As a synoptic account, it is interesting what items become relevant to the synopsis. Certainly the first harvest would have been a significant event, as it provided evidence of their ability to continue to thrive in this new land, and to create a society modeled on that of the Old World. Had they been unable to plant and harvest, they would have been required to dramatically alter their social structure to create a hunter-gatherer society, which is organized very differently from an agricultural society, with the greater complexity of social structure being supported by the more stable food source of the agrarian society.
In addition to the cultivated plants, the Nephites begin to "raise flocks, and herds." Nephi does not mention what kind of flocks or herds these were. The usage of these terms in the Book of Mormon and in the Old Testament is interesting and perhaps may shed some light on the meaning the terms acquired in the Book of Mormon.
In the Book of Mormon, "flocks and herds" are a paired set. "Herds" are not mentioned except as in conjunction with "flocks." For example, we have Nephi's statement about flocks and herds, and another example from Alma:
This usage of the paired terms "flocks and herds" matches well with Old Testament usage, where the vast majority of cases have "flocks and herds" paired, as in Exodus:
This consistent pairing indicates that there was a linguistically tied phrase common in the Old World that was perpetuated in the New World, where mention of herds would also automatically require the paired word flocks. This pairing was required only by the presence of the term "herd," however, as "flocks" could appear singly (and herd could rarely occur on its own in the Old Testament, but never in the Book of Mormon).
In Old Testament usage, flocks refer to sheep, as in:
Similarly, herds were typically associated with cattle. However, the KJV translation will at times use the world "cattle" as a translation for miqneh "a possession, thing purchased" (Strong's Analytical Concordance). This explains the confusing KJV passage in Genesis where the flock appears to refer to cattle:
In this case, verse 40 reconfirms the association with flocks and sheep, even though cattle are mentioned.
In the New World, the association between herds and cattle is only tenuous. While there are times that it might appear to be an appropriate designation, there are also clearly times when it is inappropriate to see "herds" as "cattle." In Enos, flocks are directly associated with "cattle" as well as other animals:
Enos' usage is quite problematic. First of all we have "flocks of herds," a usage completely unattested in the Old Testament. Next we have the "flocks of all manner of cattle of every kind." It is possible that Enos is so far removed from the care of such animals that he is not precise in his terms as we would expect someone to be who worked with them on a daily basis. However, Enos' writings comes so early in the Book of Mormon that it is quite certain that the Nephites had not yet developed a complex social structure, and the likelihood that Enos would have had the luxury of a mode of living divorced from raising food is very improbable (note that Benjamin, who comes later and is a king, still indicates with pride that he works with his hands for his own support Mosiah 2:12, 14). It is therefore much more likely that the terminology of "flocks and herds" was under some transition of meaning, certainly due to the differences in the animal life available in the new world. The Book of Mormon linking of "flocks and herds" combined with this evidence from the early writings of Enos further suggests that "flocks and herds" was a linked linguistic pair that had meaning together, but not necessarily separately. "Herds" may not have existed except when generically linked to "flocks."
While there is no direct evidence for the usage, there is the possibility that the Old Testament usage of miqneh "possessions" could have become the transferred meaning of the paired "flocks/herds." The usage of flocks and herds could easily fit into this meaning, where the singly used "flocks" might not (such as Mosiah 2:3 "And they also took of the firstlings of their flocks, that they might offer sacrifice and burnt offerings according to the law of Moses;" where a specific animal for sacrifice is intended rather than a generic "possessed animal").
John L. Sorenson suggests that flocks and herds may have been categories for smaller and larger animals respectively. He includes fowl in the flocks, which is completely expected in the English usage of the term, but not supported in Biblical usage (Sorenson, AN ANCIENT AMERICAN SETTING FOR THE BOOK OF MORMON, p. 293 ). His discussion of the possible animals under semi-domestication is worthwhile, but the meaning of "flocks and herds" may have been much different than his more conventional analysis suggests.