The Portland daily press., 1878-07-22
New EngIau d Farming.

1t may not be the most profitable question
we might ask, What will be the agricultural
state OF New England one hundred years
hencep But it is question full of interest
II not to the present generation, it must be to
such OF their descendants as remain in New
England at that time. That our farming in
terests have been on the retrograde, any. one
may see who travels through some of our
country towns. He cannot fail to notice the
many farm buildings, not only without occu-
pants, but fast going to decay, the fields and
pastures grown over with bushes, and the
farm gradually becoming forest. I know of
farms in New Hampshire on which large
t'-ailies have been brought up, the sons lib
orally educated, the owners of which fifty
years ago were considered thrifty farmers.
They were wealthy men for those times,
lived well, in prosperity and contentmept.
But what happened to these farmers is but
repetition OF what has happened to a thousand
other farms in New England. The children
grew to manhood and left the homestead as
teachers, doctors and ministers, some became
merchants, and others followed other pur-
suits in our large towns and cities. Not one
remains at home, and the parents soon sue
cumb to advancing age, and the farm is sold,
for trife; the timber bark and wood is cut
of and sold, whenever that operation will
pay, and the farm at last is left to grow up to
bushes.
I have often asked myself the question, is
this state of things to continue, or will the
retrograde movement be corrected and farm
ing IN New England be restored to the pros
perity OF any previous time? I have some
reasons why l think New England farming
has seen its best days. Several causes have
combined to cheaper our farms to such an
extent that, in very many cases, farms can
be purchased for less money now than the
buildings on them originally cost, or for
which they could now be built. Our beef.
PORK, lard, butter, cheese, Indian corn, and
other grains, can each be bought cheaper
than we can manufacture or raise them in
New England. Neither can we compete
with the West in sheep and wool which have
been reduced to very low figure. Now,
have no doubt New England farmers are
peers OF any of their class in the country, but
far too shrewd to expend their capital and la
Dor where there will be no profitable return.
II New England farmers have not been
able to keep their tillage and mowings in
good condition when there was little compe-
tition, and they had the markets mostly to
themselves, what possibility is there that
they will now arrest deterioration, and turn
the scale in the other direction? Our pas
lures many of them will not feed half the
stock they would forty or fifty years ago. Is
there any probability of these being restored
to their primitive vigor? If farmers, with
improved methods of farming, with new and
better agricultural implements, with all their
manurial resources, commercial fertilizers in
cluded, have allowed their tillage and now
ing lands to become poor, will they be likely
to expend much capital 10 renovate their
stoney pastures? Not with Stockbridge fer
tilizers at forty dollars per ton, am sure, for
the lands would not be worth half the money
they would cost after such improvement.
Such bulky and heavy produce as potatoes
and hay, which soon cost their value to send
to market, when raised very distant from our
large towns, remain without serious compe-
tition except from the British Provinces.
There was time when it seemed that New
England could stand any competition she
would be likely to meet in the article of but.
ter. Farmers did not dream that Western
tallow would turn to butter, and compete Sc
verely with the genuine article. Finally, If
the present mode of farming continues, WHY
will not the same results occur, and many
more farms be surrendered to what they can
produce in wood?
There is political question of grave i'm
port connected with this agricultural bust
ness. Who will be the agr icultural rulers of
New England one hundred years hence? IF
our cities and villages gain as rapidly in pop
ulation in the future as in the past, and our
rural population decrease in the same ratio.
the cities will be the rulars, and the same
people who rule the cities will then rule the
c0untry.-COr. N, E. Farmer,