The Kennewick courier-reporter. [volume] (Kennewick, Wash.) 1914-1938, 1927-12-29
summary of Annual Rport OF Sec
retary of Agriculture

AgrlculLuIe III TIE O.0s uuIiuS
the last year has made substantial
progress in recovery from the eff
fects of the postwar depression.
Progress is manifest in better bal
anced production. advancing prices
for some important crops, notably
cotton and cattle, and In further
Improvement in the relationship
between the prices of farm pro-
ducts and prices of other goods.
On Sept. Is the index number in
dicating this purchasing power
was 90, compared with an aver
age for 1926 of IS, with 100 repre-
senting the average for the five
year period preceding the war.
Since June. 1921. when the depres-
sion was at it's worst, the unit
buying power of farm products
has increased more than 35 per
cent. This means that agriculture
has regained more than three
fourths of the buying power lost
per unit of its products in the post
war price decline.
1t is important to bear in mind,
moreover, that the Improvement
thus registered in the purchasing
power index does not show the full
extent of the recovery effected.
Index numbers indicating gains in
the exchange value of farm COM
modities tell only part of the story.
They do not accurately reflect adj
vantages accruing from increased
efficiency. In the last few years
the productivity of American ag-
riculture, as measured in output
per far mworker, has increased
greatly. On fewer acres, and with
q farm population 100000 less
than in 1919, the agricultural in
dustry since 1923 has averaged a
larger volume of production than
in the years Immediately following
the war. The farmers. through in
creased efficiency, are offsetting,
to some degree, at any rate, the
effect of unfavorable relative prlc-
es.
In general, the showing for the
year is good. Yet much remains to
be done before the position of the
farmer will cease to constitute a
problem. In order to achieve higher
net incomes for agriculture, adj
vance is necessary. along several
lines. Also efforts should be made
to determine waste, lessen margins
between producers and customers
prices, to reduce transportation and
distribution costs and lessen the
farmers overhead charges by low
ering or redistributing tax burd-
ems and by improving agricultural
credit facilities. Farmers should be
encouraged to enhance their bar
gaining power thru cooperative
marketing, and the responsibility
of the public in helping to reduce
price fluctuations due to unavoid-
able gluts and shortages of agri-
cultural products should be rec
ognized in practical manner. Ov-
er-emphasis on the fairly satisfac-
tory results of single year may
cause US to forget the existence
of underlying causes of farm diff
f1culty, and therefore to neglect
practicable means of affording re-
lief.
In the nine years since the world
war ended our agriculture has un-
dergone far-reaching changes that
have materially increased the out
put of both land and labor. Trac-
tors have replaced many horses
and mules. releasing land for other
uses than the production of feed
and forage. Improved harvesting
machinery has come into wide use
The size of the average farm has
increased. More productive crops
have been planted. Livestock of in.
creased productivity has become
widely dispersed. Farm manage.
ment has become more efficient, 3
better balance has been established
among agricultural enterprises
and progress has been made In ad
justing production to market re
Guirements. The result is an in
crease in farm production. more
rapid than the rise in the country:
population.
From 1919 to 1924 there was {
decrease of 100000 acres in crol
land in the U.S.-the first decrease
ever shown by census statistics IL
the agricultural area of the nation
There occurred at the same tim,
q decrease in the number of farm
animals, a decrease in the number
of farms, and a decrease of farm
production. Under such .frcum-
stances one would hardly expec
an increase in the volume of farm
production. Yet an increase tool
place, and a very substantial one
1t is estimated that crop produc
tion in the period 1922-1926 wa
nearly five percent greater thar
in the period 1917-1921. altho TIT
aggregate acreage in crops de
creased slightly. Likewise. the out
put of. animal products In estimat
ed to have increased fully Is per
cent. The increased productivity O.
the farm worker is estimated a
about Is percent. This increase IL
Labor efficiency. probably never
before equalled, is attributed il
part to the utilization of more pro
ductive livestock and crops, in par
TO the increased use of machiner.
and power on the farm.
q All this technical progress ha
raised the question of the relation
between increased efficiency ant
the prices of farm products. 1t ha'
been suggested that the advantage
of increased efficiency to the farm