Norwich bulletin., 1917-03-10

for 1t to produce within its own limits teverything necessary for it's own con
 sumption-with the single exception of nftrates for making explosives. Such statements are apt to he pret- l ty broad. and to- be Esken with more than one grain Of salt | wasn't aware coffee, or rubber. or nutmegs. or Ma 1 nila ropes or Quinine. But perhaps these are not classed as "necessaries.' '' The fact remains that the researches and tests of the agricultural experts and explorers have vastly widened the limits of our possible production. We 1 known, now, that we can raise, if put 1 to it, a great many things which we used to import the whole of and still l import most sof.
 And we also know w-which is much more -important-that we can, if put
 to 1t. raise double or treble as much to the acre as we used to d O of standard and indigenous crops. The only question about doing it Is whether or not the increased crop
 will pay the increased cost of pro- duction.
 And yet, will all these millions of money spent eve-ys year to improve
 farming, and all these thousands of
 wise men at work to discover new crops and new ways of bettering old crops-with all this help from out
 side, we farmers aren't producing to- day, as nucn 1000 per nead or the
 population, as we were seventeen
 There's fact to put in your pipes
 and smoke.
 Way back in 1899 we produced an average of PAS pounds of met for every
 person in the country Last year we produced only 119 pounds per head
 In 1899 we produced S5 gallons of
 milk, per capita of the country's pop
 to& f4~1- fr7 ,<ln,@ Ions.
 Tn 1899 we produced A bushels of grain per capita; in 1915 only 40
 We produced more butter and cheese and more. potatoes in 1915 than in 18ss.s but not so much of either, per head.
 In apples and eggs we did little a really phenomenal gain. We actual ly produced 20 pounds of sugar per head. in 1915 against only 1-2 pounds in 1899. But it isn't clear that more likely that we imported most of it.
 Anyway. sugar is but a small item, comparatively. in the food bill of tfe ! nation. Our production, per capita, 1 fell off in meats. cereals and potatoes, l which three classes constitute fully | eighty per cent of our food,
 Ana III mat one fact lies eXpla- | nation for some considerable part of l the increased cost of living. There | are other causes which need not be 1 ignored, but it is worth while for the to consider this as one cause. definitely and concfusively set ,led
 Now there are quite a number of 'easons for this regreetable decrease n the per capita production of farm products.
 One reason is in the decrease of la ,or available for farm work. There Is 10 need to deScant on that. Every 'odys knows it, and everybody has a heory to explain lit Whether any heory is right or not matters little, 10 long as the fact remains. t'
 Closely allied to this and largely be- .ause of it. has been the increased cost of producing crops, very marked increase, especially where at empts have been made at intensive armfng. And yet, until the present eas son, there has been very little in rease in returns to the farmer, Der 'ushet or per pound. for his goods Prices paid to him are high. now; uu- Iuestio onably too high in some cases 3lit for the fourteen years back they lave not been. And the very fact thea hey are now so high is mainly due o that low range of current prices