The Marshall republican., 1913-06-20
MISSOURI THE CLIMBER

y - -
lie erage M~issourian prefers TO 20 rig
., on pulling without stopping to bio
about II. Still, there are times whe
u even the most modest M~issouria,
proud OF his splendid state, feels In
shaking and giving expression to III
: JustifiAble pride that he feels. An
only facts n figures-only truths
are necessary to make the Nilsson,
farmer pro Id of his home state.
is a big thing to live in one OF IN
/ tip-top agricultural states of the I'm
ion-and Missouri, let 10 be remem
bered. has now moved up to fourtl
place. passing some states that ono,
ranked above her and leaving I'm th,
dim distance many more. The fourth
agricultural state In the nation
That's a position of 2 which to be-
proud.
A recent official publication issued
by the United States Department OF
Agriculture and giving the value OF
all crops reported quantitatively
shows Texas first, with crop values
Tor the year 1912 amounting to siO7,-
10000; Illinois, second. S2S9,326,-
600; Iowa, third, s2Si.395,OOO; Mis-.
souri,. fourth, sfo6,9GS.0 900; Ohio.
nth. $i9O.71S,OO0; Kansas, sixth,
sls2.363,00
A further analysis OF these figures
shows Missouri's superiority. The
total land area OF Missouri is but a.
9S5.2S acres as compared with 1917
s34.72O acres In Texas. Missouri
with only about one-fourth the land
area. produced last year farm crops
worth approximately one-half' as
much rs all Texas-and practically
every buhsel OF grain grown on Mis-
souri, farms was within easy reach Of
railroads and near the great markets
and consuming centers. Now that
the cost OF marketing Is finally be-.
ing considered, as II should long ago
have been, the easy haul and the
short ship will perhaps appear OF
more Importance than In the past.
lnterest-and again we strike n live
question, that OF farm finance and
land loan systems-is another item
In which the Missouri farmer has an
advantage as compared with the far
mers OF many western states. The
Missouri farmer Is not asked to pay
10 or even 0 per cent interest. and
many farm loans are negotiated at
4 per cent or less.
Let us consider that great staple,
corn-and In 30 doing we use govern
nent. not state, figures. In 1912
Texas farmers cultivated 1900. 900
lcres OF corn land: Missouri farmers,
The corn average for the
.hree states differed but little-the
Inference is In the yield. Texas
grew 1853, 800. 900 bushels OF corn:
Kansas. 17f.225.O00; Missouri. 243.-
100000. In other words for his
work the Texas farmer got 81 bushels
corn per acre, the Kansas farmer
70 bushels and the Missouri farmer
i2 bushels. Because Il 10 to the west
nd southwest that the Missourian
gho has left the state In search OF
farming opportunities has gem
rally gone. comparisons are made
With Texas and Kansas, the only wes-
err states that rank high In total
alue OF agricultural production for
he year 1912. Il
From the foregoing figures It will
70 seen that had the Missouri far. I
ner planted 2 million acres less OF {
orn than he did In 1912 he could
till have harvested more corr than 1
Id the Kansas farmer. Had this {
anne Missouri farmer planted 3 mil
Ion acres less of corn he could have |
rown as much corn as did all Texas. i
rs the corn In the crib that counts!
is cultivation that costs! I
The cost Of growing an acre OF corn I
,cluding rent OF land is placed at 2
i2.27 for the United States. So the 7
iissouri farmer, by being able to save
be cost OF cultivating 2 or 3 million {
ores and still grow as much corn as {
or Texas, has an advantage '
hat Is worth considering. pl
The Missouri farmer has another I
nature Is ION his side" j
'arming In Missouri Is a safe proposi- q
on. Never yet has there been a gem ]
raj crop failure, In 1911 there was
rainfall for a bumper i
fop. yet them. as always. the Mis- u
ouri farmer through persistent cul. 9
harvested 19f.334.000 bush
Is of corn averaging 25,s bushels per ?
ere. Occasionally there ere over
ows in river bottoms. These leave
deposit OF soil SO rich that In some !
tates, where there are abandoned :