The Republican journal., 1916-05-04
PLAY Fair With The Farm.

helpful to some of us in trying TO solVe
the vexing problems with which we have
to deal.
At the present time, there are two
widely divergent influences at work Tor
the benefit of agriculture In this country.
One is working almost wholly for the
purpose of increasing crop production
without, seemingly, much thousht as 10
whether such increase will lead to pro-
fit or result in loss to the grower. The
other has its eyes fixed on that deluslve
1'thirty cent dollar" and while 1t means
we'll, has blinded itself by trying to look
through that obstacle, SO that it falls to
discern clearly some very important eco
nOmic truths.
Within reasonable limits. both sides
are right; beyond those limits, both are
wrong.
Without question, successful farming
depends primarily on good crop produc-
ton, There can be no such thing as
permanently profitable agriculture with
out heavy crop yields. fundamentally,
then, our government experts and college
workers are right in urging better meth
DDS of farming, to the end that we may
produce more and more of those things
which are used to feed the world.
Theoretically, they are right. In prac-
tice, they begin to be wrong the moment
the point is reached where overproduc-
ton begins.
Has that point yet been reached?
When has the world been too we'll fed?
Is not population increasing faster than
production If there is never time
when famine is not less than one year
ahead in case of general crop failure,
which all admit as true, then the gospel
of better farming, meaning thereby bet
ter crops, still needs to be preached until
every man gives heed.
Farming differs from every other busi-
ness in many essential factors. No man
can foretel the amount of any crop nor
know in advance the market conditions.
Even if farmers could make world wide
agreement to limit the acreage of any
crop. they would not be able to foresee
the total yield. Hence, crop yield is be-
You'd our control, however much we
might wish to limit it.
Again, most farm crops are OF per-
ishable nature and have to 90 to market
within a short time after their maturity.
AS a rule, they cannot be held over ex-
cept at the risk OF total loss.
AS theory, it sounds nice to advise
the farmers to unite and fix the price on
what they have to sell; in practice, no
class of men can fix the price on their
products unless they can control the out
put and hold over the goods. Hence, all
talk of such cooperation on the part OF
the farmers is waste of time and ener-
gy.
There must be some way to remedy the
ills surrounding agriculture. Farming
itself is not sick and needs no physician,
although it is being badly dosed with all
sorts of quack remedies. The Industry
is basic one and supports all others.
That the ola farm ship Is heavily loaded
with barnacles, am ready to admit. To
remove those barnacles. | am ready to
help. But it can never be done by throw
ing stones at them. 1t doesn't help any
to call the farmers fools, although few
men seem to think they show their own
mental superiority by doing SO. Nor yet
is it true that farmers are unprogres-
sive and welded to ways of the past.
ParadoXical as it may sound, 1t Is,
nevertheless, true, that progress IS based
upon conservatism. 1t is well for the
man and we'll for the nation that the ext
gencies of agriculture make the men on
the farms hard-headed, conservative, and
not easily led astray by the teachings of
false prophets.
There will be times when the produc-
ton of some crop, like apples or potatoes,
will exceed the demand. What is good
business in such cases, to refuse to sell
below cost and lose the whole, or to sell
at as good a price as possible and thus
reduce the loss to its lowest terms?
Much of the so-caiied loss in farming is
an imaginary one. When men go on year
after year in the same line Of York and
pay their bills, support their families,
educate their children, put money in the
bank and run an auto, 1t may safely be
said that they are not going behind, even
though they can figure out loss on every
cow and every crop. Men have been do
ing this, are doing it now, and all the
time cursing the business out Of which
they have made a competence.
The average dairyman says he is losing
money and thinks it's true, yet he paints
his house, pays his tax, builds barn and
has money on deposit, and usually some
in his pocket. Besides this, be can spend
more time away from home attending
Grange meetings, etc, than any other
class of men could spare from their work
and live.
One writer says he grinds it out of his
wife and family, but that isn't true, be-
cause ne WOulul w IL IL llC SouI0, anu
no modern wife would let him if he would.
The real trouble is that he is fgaring
backward in his accounts. He centers
his work and his figures on the COW in
stead of on the land. He needs to get
away from the COW far enough to figure
the per acre yield and cost of his milk and
cost of his milk and butter. That is what
will tell the truth, 'the whole truth and
nothing but the truth" about the dairy
business.
The man who gets an average of 300
pounds of butter annually per cow may
be a good dairyman, but if he uses ten
acres of good land to feed that COW. he is
a poor farmer and is doing business at
loss. A good farmer may not keep poor
cows, !but if he did, he would make more
out of them than the poor farmer would
out of good ones. No matter what the
kind of stock kept, in the final analysis it
comes to this: Success means good farm
ing first, Nature is a great teacher if
her lessons are only well learned. Ma
ture never furnished the COW with high
protein foods nor fitted her to consume
them.
When science and the COW disagree,
science is wrong. The time has come to
stop paying out all the profit Tor expen-
slve protein to run through the COW mill,
and to feed her on more of what the farm
can be made to grow.
~ hoe g,1k,, ,rrh