Fig. 1. Thirty-five-bushel wheat field (Cornell University).
Fig. 2. Eight-bushel wheat field, on a farm adjoining that shown in [Fig. 1].
It will be said that if the yield per acre be doubled, the market will be so flooded that no one will receive profits. This is the old scarecrow. No farmer can control the prices of his product. The law of supply and demand is inexorable. What he may do is to improve quality, diminish cost, reduce area, find the best market and the products most sought, and increase the production from a given area. If he raises the yield from 20 to 35 bushels, while the yield of his neighbor remains at 10 bushels and prices remain low, we shall soon see a fine illustration of “the survival of the fittest.” The 35 bushels will yield a fair remuneration for the work expended in production when prices are at the lowest. When they are high the profits are 200 to 300 per cent. Wheat, for the last ten years, has averaged 84 cents per bushel in June in central New York. Allow $3 for the straw of the lower yield, and if the wheat was sold at the average price, the total income per acre would be $11.40. For the straw of the larger yield allow $6, which, added to the wheat at the average price, would give a gross income per acre of $35.40.
The cost of raising and marketing an acre of wheat, including $5 for rental of land and $2 for fertilizers, may be set down at from $15 to $20 in New York. If the most successful compels the less successful farmer to stop raising wheat at a loss, what will the latter do with his land? Better give it away than lose by farming it. Better abandon the farm and go to town and set up a second-hand clothing store. There is always at least a small profit in that business.
In central New York a large herd of dairy cows was tested, and the owner of the herd was informed that about one-fourth of his cows were quite profitable, one-half paid their board bill and a little more, and one-fourth were kept at a considerable loss. He was advised to dispose of the unprofitable cows. His answer was, “But what will I do for cows?”
Then, to secure a competence, the crops and the land which uniformly produce loss must be abandoned. How it worries the city penny-a-liner and how it rejoices the successful farmer to see land thrown out of cultivation—“abandoned.” To me nothing is so encouraging in agriculture as this lately acquired knowledge which reveals the fact that vast areas have been cleared and brought under cultivation which should have been left undisturbed, except to harvest the mature trees and protect the young plants from ravages of fire and cattle. As the blackberry bushes, year by year, creep down the steep hillsides and over the rock-covered fields, one rejoices at the pioneer work these modest, hardy, tap-rooted plants are accomplishing. How wisely and well they fit the soil for a higher and more noble class of plants, and how surely in time they cover the shame and nakedness of mother earth!
The rural population has made many serious mistakes, toiling to reclaim land which was not worth reclaiming, not worthy of an intelligent farmer. But how could they know better? Not one college of forestry in all this great land up to 1898, and as yet but one in its infancy! Until the last generation not a single school of agriculture, scarcely a book obtainable which might give direct help to the rural American boy and girl! Therefore, the farmer should not be blamed for the wasteful and unscientific treatment of forest and field. All this leads to the conclusion that to secure a competence, lands of high and varied agricultural capabilities, lands worthy of an intelligent American, should be selected upon which to build and maintain rural homes.
Quantity of farm products we have in abundance; better quality is what is wanted, since quality may improve prices and widen markets. To assist in securing a competence some specialization is advisable. Sometimes this has been carried so far as to work serious disaster. Many farms in western New York have been almost exclusively devoted to the raising of grapes, which, when abundant or moderately so, sold at ruinous prices. It is noticed that where only an eighth or a fourth of the farm was devoted to vines, the yield was not only proportionately larger but the quality better than where nearly all the land was used as a vineyard. Wherever diversified agriculture was carried on to a limited extent and plantations were restricted, the low price of grapes made no serious inroads on the income. Where all the land was given up to grapes, work was intermittent, the farmer being overtasked at one season of the year and idle at another. The demoralizing effect on the farmers and their families of this army of unrestrained youths and loungers of the city, which, for a brief period, swarms in the districts devoted to specialized crops, as grapes, berries and hops, is marked.
The baleful result of raising a single or few products in extended districts may be seen in California and the great wheat districts of the northwest. In such localities there is little or no true home life, with its duties and restraints; men and boys are herded together like cattle, sleep where they may, and subsist as best they can. The work is hard, and from sun to sun for two or three months, when it abruptly ceases, and the workmen are left to find employment as best they may, or adopt the life and habits of the professional tramp. It is difficult to name anything more demoralizing to men, and especially to boys, than intermittent labor; and the higher the wages paid and the shorter the period of service, the more demoralizing the effect. If there were no other reason for practicing a somewhat diversified agriculture, the welfare of the workman and his family should form a sufficient one. Happily, many large and demoralizing wheat ranches are being divided into small farms, upon which are being reared the roof-tree, children, fruits and flowers.