The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1880-10-30
Cooperation in Farming.


there is more cooperation than in anv
former time. The reverse of this, how
ever, is true of the business of farming.
In the early days of the settlement of
the Eastern States it was very common
for farmers to unite in doing nearly ey-
cry kind of work If farmer wished
to build log house, to dig cellar, or
clear piece of land, several of his
neighbors turned out and assisted in do
ing the work that could with difficulty
be performed by one man. In breaking
new ground it was customary ''to Join
teams.'' During haying and harvest
ing it was common to "change work. "
Men who became experts in any de-
partment of labor, as stacking hay and
grain, performed all that kind of work
in the neighborhood, and were compen-
stated by persons who were skillful in
some other operations, as sowing grain
and grass seed, slaughtering animals, or
grating trees. The farmers enioyed
working together, and generally believed
that they accomplished more than when
they worked by themselves. Sometimes
all the farmers in a neighborhood turned
out and formed ''bee," for the pur-
pose of killing hogs, husking corn, or
moving building. By doing so they
changed hard work into sport.
In those old times farmers wives re-
sorted to cooperation in performing
much of their work. They "changed
milk' in order to lessen the labor of
making cheese. This plan enabled
them to make larger cheese than when
only the milk produced on one farm
was worked up in the house. 1t also
obviated the necessity of obtaining q
large number of vats for making odrd
and presses for forming the cheese.
They often united in the manufacture
of various kinds of cloth. 1t was then
the fashion to have quilting bees" and
"apple BEES" All these s'bees" were
attended by sports, games and gen
eral good time. Doing work without
the aid ofmachinery, they continued to
do it expeditiously by means of cooper
alton, and found pleasure in each others
society. The absence of machines and
other labor-saving appliances rendered
cooperation among farmers necessary
The Introduction of machinery has
contributed to favor cooperation in al
most all the mechanical pursuits. 1t
appears to have had the contrary effect
in farming. Since the introduction
of machiney we seldom find farmers
uniting to do any kind of work except
that of thrashing grain. There is no
more "joining teams or "changing
work. except in the one instance re-
ferred to. The corn-shucking' and
the ling bee" live only in history.
Every farmer works for himself He
has little or no intercourse with his
neighbors. He does not cooperate
with any persons engaged in the same
kind of employment. He puts barbed
wire fence about his farm instead of a
Chinese wall, but it answers the pur-
pose equally well. He prides himself
on being an independent farmer. In
truth, he is too independent for his own
good, socially or otherwise.
A large amount of expense might be
saved if ten or twenty farmers would
unite in the purchase of tools that are
only employed during limited periods
of the year. One feld-roller is sufficient
to do all the work required of it on
twenty farms of the average size. 1t can
be conveyed from one place to another
without difficulty, and will last fifty
years if properly taken care of. One
breaking-plow, one grain drill, one
broadcast seeder, one post-driver, one
fence wire stretcher, one corn-planter,
one stump-extractor are amply sufficient
to do all the work each was designed to
perform on five sections of land, wheth-
er it belongs to one individual or to
several, and it seems to be the height of
folly for each owner of a small farm to
own them all for the sole purpose of do
ing the work on his place. The cost of
these tools is very considerable, while
the annual outlay for storage and taxes
is large. They require the same
amount of care whether they are kept
in use several weeks or only few days
in every year. The taxes and insur-
ance amount to the same whether they
are employed during a large or small
portion of the season.
Objections can of course be raised
against the plan of farmers uniting to
own and use costly agricultural imple-
ments in common. 1t is unquestionably
true that several might wish and not
lind 1t convenient to use the same N
plement on the same day. But the diff
ficulties in these cases could be readily
adjusted. The care and disposition of
the tools could be given to one person
or to a committee chosen by all the joint
owners, who should receive applications
and give the use of the implement to
those persons who could employ them
without much inconvenience to others.
AS rule each farm implement remains
idle about half of each day on account
of the inability of team to operate it a
longer time. If one farmer uses
it constantly during the forenoon
another may attach fresh team to
it and use it constantly during the after
noon. In respect tc keeping costly ma
chinery constantly occupied, manufac-
turers "are wiser in their generation"
than farmers are. They not unfre-
quently employ two sets of hands to
manage the same machine, so that one
may eat, rest and sleep while the other
is at work. By so doing they save the
expense of one shop and one set of ma
chinery, and also save paying a large
sum for taxes and insurance. 1t is a
fact well known to the farmers of every
neighborhoo6 that some one person gen
orally acquires greater skill in the use of