The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-10-29
What Other People Think
Are the Crops Misrepresentation

W1al Ut1er reOple link
'. Are the Crops MIsrepresented2
To the Editor of The Journal.
closely follow the reports about the
crops, and cannot help smiling at the
excuses given for SO little grain being
marketed. The reason given in your
Wednesday ISSUE shortage of cars, was
most ridiculous. There has been no
shortage along the Minneapolis & st.
Louis line, nor in the northern part OF the
state. in fact that question has not been
raised materially this year.
With these conditions, then, (no short
age Of cars exists so little grain having
been marketed all over the northwest,
that one is led to ask, what is the
trouble? Why is business dull and coll
lections slower than In previous years.
when in your and other papers, such
bountiful conditions exist? The answer
is that all crops are away below what
they have been stated to be, and in fact
they only exist in theories and estimates
made long before the grain was cut.
Now: we have learned the cold facts
from the threshers, from all parts Of the
state, that wheat, instead of yielding
twenty to twenty-five bushels per acre,
come nearer to, say eight to ten bushels,
and flax, instead of yielding eighteen tc
twenty bushels to the acre, also comes
nearer to six and eight bushels. Labor
cost more than before, expenses all along
the line are higher, so the much-lauded
prosperous condition for the farmers this
fall is not true, in fact it will be away
below the average year, and with all these
facts before us, your paper lis all the time
pounding along about the bountiful con-
ditions that exist a point that I raise is
not true, and it is for the purpose to see
wrong righted that I ask you to insert
this letter in your next issue, to at least
try to correct a condition that has been SO
grossly misrepresented, as the crop con-
ditions this season. Peter Bergh.
Dawson, Mimi, Oct. rs. 49, az. .--.,..
It is easy to understand the disap-
pointment of one who expects twenty to
twenty-five bushels Of wheat per acre
and gets only ten, but not: so , easy to
know why he should expect it. A general
yield of twenty-five bushels is quite I'M
thinkablelar Such a production on this
years acreage would mean $4,000, 900
bushels in three states.
! While there are always few instances
of twenty-five bushels, there are many
every year Of eight to ten bushels. North
Dakota probably had 100000 acres OF
wheat this year that went as low as
eight bushels, but Of the total Of 5,992, 900
acres, there were many going higher,
some even touching twenty-five bushels.
/ Mr.. Bergh notes returns of eight to ten
bushels in Minnesota. This is quite
right. The. government says the average
yield in Minnesota this year was 1913
bushels. ....-. r,.
The three states produced in 1905,
1874, 190, 900 bushels, in 1904, 1852, 49,, 900;
1908, 173, La, 900; 1902, 1856, SCI, eoo. and in
1901. 1s1, o76,o00, an average of 1850 900.
! This year the start was made with
5, 49, 900 acres in wheat In Minnesota.
5,992, 900 in North Dakota, and 3,131, 00e
| in South Dakota, a total of 14,242, 600
acres. The fact that there was a large
increase in ,durum wheat, which yields
more bushels generally, was an influence
for larger yields.
| If the average for the three states was
only twelve bushels, certainly many an
expectation Of twenty to twenty-five
bushels must have met disappointment,
yet twelve bushels would COVE a crop Of
El7O,9O4,00o, or a very satisfactory return,
Just1fying reports that the northwest had
basis for continued prosperity. If the
yield averaged thirteen bushels the crop
was 1856, $4,000, or Well above the five
year average; If it was fourteen bushels
the total was 199,3ss, OOO and if it aver
aged fifteen bushels there was a crop Of
2O3, $50, 900. =
| There are whole counties in Minnesota
where yields are low and net results be-
low last. year, but the northwest is a biz
country. . .-5
Differences of opinion this year center
about the northern North Dakota area.
The government says there were 5,ss2, 900
acres. Many in the grain trade consider
this too low, and that the area was near
erer to 6,250,000 acres. This is a matter
! of judgment.
1t must be remembered that the gov
eminent is not tnfallible and has fire.
quently erred on the side of an UNDER
estimate. The scandal attending the pub
lication Of the census figures for 1900,
when by comparison it was found that the
agricultural department was far out OF
line had underestimated acreage for
years. and had not kept up with new de-
velopment, is still fresh in the public
mind. ...-.
Z h e j O u Tn a L has printed hundreds
OF unfavorable reports this season. Every
report coming to hand. from a reliable
source, has been printed. Its concern is
with the news rather than with the pro-
duction. general summary has seemed
to warrant the belief that there were good
crops this year, notwithstanding serious
losses in some places.