The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1912-08-15

pulls down the New Englandaaverage to IA tons per acre. This is a bit
 ahead of Illinois and North Dakota,
 but slightly less than Iowa and Min nesota.
 Crops Worth More in New England | Associated with this showing of yields is the value per bushel or ton to the New England farmer as conn pared with Illinois All realize that bushel of corn, wheat or a ton of hay is worth more in the New Eng land market than in North Dakota. Iowa or even Illinois Elaborate da-
 ta are not given on this point, since it
 Is really included in the total value or agricultural products per acre of improved land, as provided in Tables
 and 4. The favorite arguments of the proud westerner are included in
 Table 3, which shows the total value
 of animals, cereals, hay, sundry crops.
 fruit and vegetables. With pride
 will the Illinois farmer point to a total value of live stock for his con-
 monwealth of more than $30O.Oe0,- 900, something more than three times as much as the six New England
 states combined. For a clincher, he will point to a total value of cereals
 approaching $30O,000, ,000 more, and scornfully direct attention to New
 England's drop in the bucket of S1O,- O00;0O0 as value of cereals,
 Note, however, that Illinois has over 2s,0O0,000 acres improved land, nearly four times the amount in the
 six New England states. New Eng land has a showing of $13.5O Of live stock on each improved acre,
 while Illinois has $11. Again is the reader reminded that the farmer ia interested primarily in his own pro-
 auction per acre and per farm rath- CT than per state.
 Ara%how @4c New England is the worn-out soil and nigh cost of feeds and fertilizer which the farmer must buy. Table gives
 the facts on this point. There is shown the land value per acre, labor cost per acre, cost of feed and fer
 tiizer. This is for the six New Eng | land states and Is followed by an av. craze for New England, then com l parisons with Illinois, Iowa, North Dakota and Minnesota. It is an in- teresting comparison.
 For instance, we note that the ay-
 craze cost of labor in New England | per acre Is SASS, with Illinois drop- ping to 95 cents, Iowa 50 cents, North Dakota and Minnesota 80 cents each. Two important factors are, presun1 . l ably, less use of improved machinery
 and the intensive forms of agricul- 1 ture in New England, especially in
 Massachusetts, Rhode Island and l Connecticut.
 l The cost of feed and fertilizer Der
 acre likewise shows to the disadvan- 1 tage of New England, there being a
 total of $7.16 per acre chargeable to
 these two items. However, the showing is not nearly so bad as many
 would believe. Add both the labor and feed and fertilizer items, and yo1l
 have in the vicinity of SIP for each acre in New England This is an
 excess of $10 more per acre than the
 Illinois farmer faces. But what of 1 the cost of the land per acre? New
 England has an average cost of $24, and Illinois jumps to $95, a difference | in favor of New England of over S70. This would offset New England's la bor and fertilizer handicap for nun1- Der of years, without another modi- flying factor.
 Still more important is the fact
 that New England can, if she will, lower her labor cost materially through application of some western
 methods. Only fraction of the i'm | proved land is handled in the east from the economical standpoint as re-
 gards improved machinery. The same argument applies more strongly to feeds and fertilizers.
 The New England farmer is just be- l ginning to realize he must grow his own feed. instead of paying high prices. This means more live stock, to produce more fertility to raise
 more crops, to keep still more live
 stock, steadily enIarging the cycle.
 Backed by crop rotation and better planning, these items of feed and fer
 tilizer may be halved and perhaps
 more. While the same may apply l to Illinois and Iowa, it is in a mulch less degree, for observe that these | farmers have already lowered the
 items through just such methods. The
 New England farmer is only begin
 hing to arouse to these material econ
 onies and the possibilities that are | his.
 These facts merit wide dissemina-
 ton and the thought of those Ionlrir s
 to Greater New England. Not ons | in 10 of us realizes how New Eng ! land excels. Let's better appreciate our resources and be better boosters.