Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1879-11-14
Farm and Household.



tleman) the chief advantage of Eastern farm
ers is that when they make their land richer,
it counts Immediately as part of the profits
In the West, increasing the productiyeness of
FARMS except by bringing new land under the
pillow, has not been thought of so much con-
sequence. There are of course exceptions to
this as to all general rules, but reference is
here made to the prevalent systems of farm
ing. That this plan Of exhaustive cropping,
with little or no regard to fertility, is right or
best, this correspondent does not by any
means affirm, but only that the system is bet
ter adapted to the West than here. If an
Eastern farmer can farm only on this plan,
he says, undoubtedly the best thing for him to
10 is to quit the business and go at something
else. The next best is to sell out here, take
Horace Greeley's advice and Ego West
Thousands of such men have gone West, and
it is perhaps safe to say that large proper
tion-perhaps a majority-of Eastern men
who have gone West as farmers were more
or less failures here. This rule also has nu-
merous exceptions especially among the
young men who have their fortunes to make,
and to whom high priced Eastern lands offer
to buy and work them properly. When an
Eastern farmer has good homestead paid
for and with comfortable buildings he al
most invariably makes a mistake in selling
out and going to the West He understands
Eastern modes of farming; those of the West
he does not understand, and while learning
he will be quite sure to lose a considerable
part Of his capital. 1t may be that Western
methods in the exclusive wheat-growing
States ale not the best Wheat after wheat,
until in some States the crop has run down to
less than ten bushels per acre, cannot be prof
table What apparent profit made is lost
in the decreased value and productiveness Of
the land
But this policy may be, or at least seem, a
necessity, and therefore not to be avoided.
Some Eastern men who have gone West with
the idea that they would follow Eastern meth
DDS, have come to grief. They have perhaps
improved their land, but they have lost mon
ey while doing this and where land can be
had at very low rates, improving the soil does
not make much difference. A farm where
the fertility has been retained has yet to be
sold in competition with virgin soil, which is
at least as rich. All the improved land can
claim is the fences and buildings, and these
when a farm has to be sold, will rarely pay
cost. In many places the farm itself will not
sell for much if any more than the cost of
buildings and Improvements put upon it. In
Eastern farming, if farmers will make i'm
provements judiciously, they can make such
Improvements bring satisfactory return.
H. 30
ers East and West than were ever before
known yet even during these barren years,
some farmers have made and saved money.
They have bought partly run down farms,
underdrained and reclaimed waste places,
made barren spots productive, and now their
farms are worth much more than what they
cost, and are increasing in productiveness
yearly. 1t is true these men had capital, but
in the way they have used it, they have made
this capital pay good interest by investing it
in their farms 1 doubt whether this would
be possible where land is SO cheap as it is in
some portions of the West There is such a
thing as having good land too cheap to pay
for good farming This ia and has been ono
trouble with the West. Cheap land impels,
if it does not compel, farmers to make their
profits by exhaustive cropping Even where
tock-growing is practiced, the improvement
of the land is a minor consideration, if indeed
it is considered at all. This rule does not APP
ply to those parts of the West where improve
ment of the land has begun. The tilers of
the soil are properly classed as Eastern farm
ers. There are many such in Ohio and L.
linois.
In the East no man can farm long success
fully without making the increased product
iveness of his land leading consideration.
Men occasionally make profit on particular
crops, but never enough to bring profitable
return for the whole farm, unless the farm is
yearly growing better. In the West, the crop
on the land is often worth more than the land
itself. Here it rarely or never is so. In pro-
portion as the value of the land is greater
than that of the crop, is the necessity for
making the former the leading consideration.
All the time, with most of our crops, Eastern
farmers have had to compete with men who
apparently cared nothing for increasing the
productiyeness of their soil. It has only
been possible to do this by 50 much better
farming as to be able to produce our crops as
cheaply as Western farmers can. When we
can do this, as some farmers have learned to
do, the question is settled forever. When we
begin improving land, and find the improve.
nents paying good return in the investment,
there is no end to the extent to which this
plan may be CARRIED. Eastern lands are not
likely ever to be cheaper than now On some,
the running down process has not yet been
arrested, and such may be lower-priced
though really dearer. A badly rundown
farm is not good one to buy, unless it can be
bought at great sacrifice. The good farm
er will prefer to buy, at a higher price, land
which is already in condition for cropping,
and where the improvements needed will pay
the largest returns on the money invested in
making them. 1t is also generally true that
the higher priced the land itself is, the better
profit it will pay for making it productive
There are undoubtedly thousands of farm
ers in Eastern States badly in debt and stead
lily losing money. 1t is not always true that
these men are not industrious farmers and
even good managers. Lack of capital to
work with will cripple any man. The sue
oesSful farmers are those who have the cap
ital to do whatever they please, and use it SO
as to make it pay. The fact that it does pay
seven per cent. and often more shows that
the trouble with much of our Improbable
farming lies in attempting more than can be
accomplished. Anything half done is neces
sarily failure, while perhaps if it could be
done thoroughly and in season, it would be Q
success. The best thing that farmers who
are badly in debt can do is to sell enough Of
their land to free them from debt, and give
them fair working capital for the remand
er. The working capital may be borrowed il
the farmer is young, industrious and courag
eous and can get long time for its repay
ment.