CHAPTER II
THE PRODUCTION OF WHEAT IN THE ARGENTINE, COMPARED WITH THE YIELD OF OTHER EXPORTING COUNTRIES
The world’s wheat-harvest—Comparison between the statistics of consumption—The conditions of production in Russia and in the Argentine—Comparison with the United States, India and Canada—The prospects of the Argentine export trade in wheat.
Having described the progress realised by the Argentine Republic in the course of the last few years, it will be not without interest to inquire what are the resources of those nations which are, or may be, the competitors of the Argentine in the world-market and in the production and consumption of wheat.
Here, according to the most reliable sources, are the figures relating to the average yield of wheat in the whole world during the last sixteen years:—
| Period | Year | Year | ||
| 1894-1903. | 1904. | 1907. | ||
| Europe | (bushels of 60 lbs.) | 1,468,000,000 | 1,656,000,000 | 1,652,000,000 |
| America | ” | 684,000,000 | 756,000,000 | 889,000,000 |
| Asia and Australia | ” | 295,000,000 | 396,000,000 | 458,000,000 |
| Africa | ” | 43,000,000 | 57,600,000 | 54,800,000 |
| —————— | —————— | —————— | ||
| Totals (approx.) | 2,490,000,000 | 2,865,600,000 | 3,050,000,000 | |
| —————— | —————— | —————— |
We see that the European production of wheat represents nearly 59 per cent. of the world’s production, for a population which, according to the calculations of M. Levasseur, consists of about 411 millions of inhabitants. If we reduce this figure by one-fourth, thus eliminating infants and the aged, we find that this population disposes of only 272·8 lb. of wheat per head, or 521·2 lb. less than the “type” or standard ration of 793·8 lb. per annum, recommended by the Bureau of Experimental Stations of the Ministry of Agriculture of the United States, after long and patient research.
In pursuing this inquiry into the distribution of wheat production among all the countries of the world, we shall be able to judge of the rank occupied by the Argentine Republic, and by so doing to rectify an error which is frequently committed,
the error of confounding exportation and importation, which gives this country a very different place to that which is its right.
Here are the figures showing how the production of wheat is distributed:—
| Country. | Period. | Year. | ||
| 1894-1903. | 1904. | 1907. | ||
| United States | (bushels of 60 lbs.) | 576,000,000 | 504,000,000 | 601,000,000 |
| Russia | ” | 360,000,000 | 605,000,000 | 547,000,000 |
| France | ” | 316,000,000 | 290,000,000 | 336,000,000 |
| Austro-Hungary | ” | 180,000,000 | 170,000,000 | 197,000,000 |
| Argentine Republic | ” | 76,000,000 | 147,000,000 | 177,000,000 |
| Italy | ” | 119,000,000 | 143,000,000 | 148,000,000 |
| Spain | ” | 93,600,000 | 91,800,000 | 109,600,000 |
| Germany | ” | 116,000,000 | 144,000,000 | 101,700,000 |
| Canada | ” | 63,000,000 | 67,300,000 | 82,000,000 |
| Roumania | ” | 57,600,000 | 50,700,000 | 54,800,000 |
| England | ” | 54,000,000 | 36,700,000 | 47,000,000 |
| Bulgaria | ” | — | 50,700,000 | 42,800,000 |
| Asiatic Countries | ” | — | 340,000,000 | 364,000,000 |
| Australia | ” | — | 59,400,000 | 82,000,000 |
| Other European Countries | ” | — | 78,800,000 | 65,400,000 |
| African Countries | ” | — | 47,000,000 | 54,800,000 |
| Other American Countries | ” | — | 29,000,000 | 27,000,000 |
| —————— | —————— | |||
| Totals (approx.) | 2,890,000,000 | 3,030,000,000 | ||
This table shows that in 1907 the Argentine occupied the fifth place as a wheat-growing country.
If we compare this production of wheat with the minimum ration of 793·8 lb,[50] which is considered indispensable to human nutrition, we see that apart from European Russia, with its 116 million inhabitants, there is left for the remaining 300 millions of Europeans, less a quarter, as we have explained above—that is, for a population of 225 millions—about 1,200,000,000 bushels of wheat. This quantity represents an average of 151·5 lb. per head per annum, or a deficiency of 249·7 lb. per head.
[50] There seems something improbable about this figure. For one thing, very few people could eat over 2 lb. of wheat—representing over 3 lb. of bread—per diem; and white bread forms no important part of the diet of most populations. Probably the figures represent the amount of bread necessary to a hardworking labourer, whose dietary consists chiefly of bread—a diet only common to the south of England.—[Trans.]
The population of Germany, estimated at 59 millions, has only 147·4 lb. of wheat per head, making a deficiency of 644·6 lb. per inhabitant.
The United Kingdom furnishes its 42,500 inhabitants with only 50·6 lb. of bread per annum, leaving a deficiency of 741·4 lb. per head.
Thus Europe, which, without Russia, produces more wheat than the rest of the world, does not produce enough for her own consumption, low as it is. It is therefore necessary to seek out these wheat-producing countries which are in a position to make up this deficiency. Now at the present time there are very few such countries; they are Russia, the United States, the Argentine Republic, Canada, and India, and among these it is the Argentine for which the most important place seems to have been reserved.
Russia has hitherto been one of the great providers of wheat to Europe; but it would seem that this position is not one that she can retain. Russia is far from having attained the degree of agricultural evolution which the Argentine has achieved; it is true that she exports 80 per cent. of her wheat harvest, but then the Russian peasant eats only rye bread. Of the 326 millions of acres of cultivated land in Russia, 30 millions only are devoted to wheat, or rather less than double the area used for the same cereal in France, or just double the wheat-area of the last Argentine harvest.
In the wheat-belt of Tchernoziom, the black earth is all in cultivation, and its extent cannot be further increased. Fertile though this soil may be, and although its depth is from 12 to 40 inches, the results amount to no more than four or five grains of wheat for each grain sown. The last harvest gave about 5·54 bushels per acre, while the average in France is 20 bushels.
These results are due chiefly to the poverty and ignorance of the Russian peasant; it often happens that his wheat crop no longer belongs to him, having been sequestrated by the tax-gatherer in payment of unpaid taxes. On the other hand, the Russian peasant cannot procure agricultural machinery, the price of which is increased by exaggerated tariffs.[51] He
cannot even obtain draught animals, his wretched resources not allowing him to procure them.
[51] More: when it is provided for him he frequently will not use it; or it undergoes a series of remarkable accidents, so that the harvest has to be gathered by hand. This is more especially the case where he is reaping another’s harvest, when his object is to ensure the employment of more hands. He is unable to understand that machinery means wealth and development. It is only fair to say that it seldom does in Russia, as he cannot easily get more land of his own, and his master’s estate is often hemmed in by others.—[Trans.]
If to these factors we add the progressive exhaustion of the soil, we see that the production of Russian wheat for export is very near its limit; the more so as the home consumption of wheat tends to increase with the economic development of the country. We can hardly wish otherwise than that these peasant farmers, habituated to a life of poverty, should themselves consume some of the wheat they produce, instead of contenting themselves with rye.
Let us now compare this picture of Russian production to that presented by the Argentine.
What is it that is responsible for the superiority of the Argentine Pampa over the Russian steppes? It is the inexhaustible fertility of a virgin soil, which produces abundant crops, without necessitating artificial enrichment, nor even the system of the rotation of crops. The soil yields harvests of 20 bushels to the acre, without exhaustion, producing for many years in succession, as it is doing now in Chubut, in the south of Buenos Ayres, and in Córdoba, while the yield of the Russian harvests is only 5·5 bushels.
For the exploitation of this wealth, Argentine agriculture employs the most perfect machinery to be obtained in the world, employing thousands of horses also, to drive it; while the Russian peasant has to work with his own hands, having neither machines nor horses to multiply his strength.
What shall we say of the prosperous and fortunate situation of the Argentine colonist, who is not only enabled out of the fruits of his labour to have bread and meat in abundance upon his table, but is often in process of acquiring, and that without long delay, the earth he cultivates. His happy lot has nothing in common with that of the Russian peasant, the veritable serf of the soil, who never gets so far as to eat the smallest crumb of the wheat he has harvested.
The one labours under a soft, benign sky, which does not expose him to the rigour of extreme temperatures in an atmosphere of freedom and brotherhood which make for energy, while the other labours at his furrow in a severe and unequal climate, and under a system of political oppression which crushes his individuality and diminishes the value
of his efforts. A comparison between the social and economic conditions of agriculture in the two countries inclines us to conclude, without prejudice, that Russia cannot be considered a dangerous rival to the Argentine or the markets of the world.
The Republic of the United States of America is incontestably the first wheat-growing country in the whole world; and it is interesting to consider whether this country, which is also the greatest exporter of wheat, will remain in the future, in spite of the growth of internal consumption, a formidable rival to the Argentine in the markets of the world.
Let us first of all consider what great progress there has already been in the production of wheat in the United States.
| Year. | Population. | Production. | Proportion Exported. |
| (in Millions of Bushels.) | Per cent. | ||
| 1877 | 46,353,000 | 280 | 25·6 |
| 1882 | 52,495,000 | 373 | 31·8 |
| 1886 | 57,404,000 | 346 | 26·5 |
| 1891 | 63,844,000 | 386 | 26·6 |
| 1894 | 67,692,000 | 383 | 41·5 |
| 1897 | 71,592,000 | 414 | 33·9 |
| 1901 | 77,647,000 | 506 | 41·36 |
| 1904 | — | 533 | — |
| 1905 | — | 645 | — |
| 1906 | 84,216,433 | 669 | 26·6 |
| 1907 | — | 621 | 24·1 |
In the United States the area under wheat has considerably increased, but the yield per acre has steadily decreased. Thus we find that in 1875 the yield was 12·3 bushels per acre; 17 bushels per acre in 1879; 11·7 in 1883; 14·9 in 1892; 13·4 in 1899; 10·5 in 1902; 10 in 1903; and 13·6 in 1904. Thus in spite of the increased yield, the results per acre have not increased, and the average of 1904 is inferior to that of 1879; while in France the average yield has been one of 20 bushels per acre from 1900 to 1904.
The national census of the United States for 1900 contains a graphic chart, which represents the average yield; from which we find that only in the north-west, certain districts of the west, and in a portion of the States of Washington, Oregon, and California has the production equalled this
maximum of 20 bushels per acre; in most other localities, which afford the vast majority of cases, the yield has varied between 8·5 and 15·6 gallons per acre.
Having glanced at the production of the United States, we must inquire whether this great nation is increasing its exportation of wheat proportionately, and how far such exportation may prove an obstacle to the development of the Argentine.
The following figures representing the years of the largest export of wheat, will throw light upon this matter.
| Years. | Wheat Exported. | Price. |
| (Millions of bushels.) | (Per Bushel on the Dock.) | |
| 1879 | 145 | 5s. 51⁄2d. |
| 1892 | 218 | 5s. 3d. |
| 1898 | 210 | 5s. 0d. |
| 1899 | 214 | 3s. 104⁄5d. |
| 1901 | 209 | 3s. 83⁄4d. |
| 1902 | 227 | 3s. 111⁄4d. |
We see that in spite of the European alarmists, who in 1876 denounced the “American Wheat Peril,” it took fourteen years for the exports to increase from 145 to 218 millions of bushels, and that the latter figure has been only four times surpassed since 1892.
The production of wheat, on the other hand, increased 116 per cent, between 1875 and 1903, while the population, during the same period, increased only by 82 per cent. But we must not forget that although the increase in population is constant, that of production is not—indeed, the harvest of 1901 amounted to only 273 million bushels of wheat, as compared to 280 millions in 1877. There is a decrease in years of bad harvests, but the population naturally knows no such decrease.
The consumption of wheat did not increase between the census of 1890 and that of 1900; the average remained 424·6 lb. per head, representing a deficit of 368·8 lb. below the standard allowance of 793·4 lb.
On the other hand, as the population increases by about 11⁄4 or 11⁄3 millions per annum, while consumption remains stationary, we may conclude that if this country has not yet reached its maximum of wheat-production, it is very near that stage, and that the moment is approaching at which all
its wheat harvest will be absorbed by internal consumption, to the detriment of the export trade.
We have mentioned India as a wheat-exporting country; but it is no longer a rival to the Argentine in the conquest of the international markets. Here is the comparative table of exportation from India and the Argentine.
| Years. | India. | The Argentine. |
| (Millions of Bushels.) | (Millions of Bushels.) | |
| 1891-2 | 54·5 | 34·2 |
| 1900-1 | ·9 | 36·8 |
| 1902-3 | 18·5 | 60·0 |
| 1905-6 | 26·7 | 109·0 |
| 1906-7 | 28·9 | 106·8 |
A mere glance at these figures is more eloquent than any commentary, since the exportation of wheat from India increased by barely 10,000,000 bushels between 1902 and 1907, while that from the Argentine increased by 46,000,000 bushels. On the other hand, it is known that India exports only 10 per cent. of her harvest, although her extremely frugal population consumes only 1·26 lb. of wheat per head, instead of the 793·4 lb. we have taken as our basis of annual consumption. We see then that the production of India, if her population consumed a normal amount of wheat,[52] would not satisfy the national requirements, so that far from exporting wheat she would, on the contrary, be forced to import large quantities from without.
[52] There is really no such thing as a normal consumption of wheat, especially for India. The amount consumed is a matter of climate, local or national foodstuffs, fuel, methods of cooking, etc.—[Trans.]
Canada is among those wheat-growing countries whose competition is most to be feared; and this for many reasons—geographical, political and economical. If Argentine statesmen do not seriously apply themselves to attracting a foreign population, and to reducing the expenses which press upon the inhabitants, the Argentine will run the risk of being supplanted in the future by this important British colony.
Canada, from many points of view, presents a singular analogy to the Argentine Pampas. Like the latter, it is an almost desert country, its area being 3,190,000 square miles (nearly 2 millions more than the Argentine), with a population of 5,371,000, or slightly less than that of the Argentine; and like the latter, Canada is a country in process of
formation. A similarity which completes the comparison is that the exports of Canada consist principally of the products of agriculture and stock-raising. Her principal client for wheat is England; in 1906-1907 the harvest was 84,470,000 bushels, and 41,033,000 bushels were exported; or almost exactly half.
Here we should remark that the Canadian Government is making every effort to increase the population, and spares no pains to attain its object. In contrast to what has been done in the Argentine, where the public lands have only served to form latifundia, and to enrich a few individuals, the soil in Canada is sold by the aid of accurate maps, which are accompanied by a mass of information upon questions that may interest prospective colonists; more, the purchaser is given all kinds of facilities for payment, as well as for meeting the first expenses of installation. Thanks to a rational and active propaganda, immigration is abundant; the figures for 1903 were 128,364, compared with 112,671 in the case of the Argentine. Finally, Canada contains 19,500 miles of railways, as against 13,600 in the Argentine.
From the foregoing data we may conclude that the countries capable of exporting wheat are far from numerous, and that the area sown with cereals throughout the world is comparatively small. Hitherto wheat has been grown on an extensive scale in the United States, Russia, and India; the agriculturalist demands everything of the soil and gives it nothing, so that the alternative will soon arise of losing the harvest, or of restoring fertility to exhausted soils, by means of costly manures which will absorb enormous sums. Then the legend of new countries will have had its day.
To resume: there exists an enormous discrepancy between the needs of the consumer and the production of wheat; and the Argentine Republic, thanks to a concatenation of favourable economic and physical circumstances, is certainly in the best position in a great measure to supply this deficiency. But to obtain the desired result it is indispensable that she should still increase her population, and that the colonist should find upon the hospitable Argentine soil not only the guarantees of liberty and justice, but conditions propitious to his evolution as a land-owner.