The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1930-06-11
Editorial Comment
Mass Production in Agriculture
New York Tines

Henry Fords proposal to solve the farm problem by
mass production" like most Of his plans for industrial
problems other than his own, has something of cheerful
vagueness. The idea of producing grain on one large
farm or group of farms, in such quantity and with such
uniform application of labor saving machinery as to
cut the cost of production far below the commonly &C
cepted level, is not new. Experiment stations of univer-
sites In the agricultural states have been working hope
fully for the extension of such economies. Once in a
while the intimation comes from such sources, in an
unofficial way. that production of wheat for SO or so
cents a bushel is in sight on an experimental plant,
though usually without particulars as to overhead
But this Is not the mass production of the Ford works,
which concerned itself with conversion Ct crude or half
finished material into the finished product with maxi
mum uniformity Of process and minimum necessity for
labor. Under any circumstances, production in agri-
culture must be conducted through a variety of pro-
cesses, applied over an area large in proportion to the
anticipated output and always subject, as mass produc-
ton III manufacture is not. to the vicissitudes OF the
seasons.
No one disputes that a very great part of our farm
production Is uneconomicaly conducted. 1t is not even
possible to say what the average farmer actually earns.
The department of agriculture compiled a year ago the
reports of yearly income and expenditure obtained from
1880 farms, averaging in size 275 acres, and Its balance
sheet for the reporting producers as a whole hardly sug-
gested that agriculture was a going business. The aver
age revenue for 1927 was $2,5O5, the average cash outlay
$l.457, and the balance, even allowing an average OF
s242 for increased inventory, was only 1920. The fur
Their allowance of $273 for saving through consumption
on the farm of food products raised on it is offset by
an average of Sal spent for improvements, of SOL for
interest, and $76s assigned for value OF labor contributed
the departments yearbook, was an average net income
of $948 from purely cash items, and of $453 if value of
family labor and Of products consumed on the farm is
allowed for.
But it is hardly possible to accept these figures as
picturing the real farm situation. The reporting farms
were only a small fraction of the total number, and the
table gives no clue to the relative profitableness of very
small or very large individual farms. It does show that,
while nearly one-fourth Of the reports gave less than
$500 as excess of receipts over cash outlay less interest
and improvements, nearly 81 per cent of them earned
5000 or more, and nearly 6h per cent earned between
$4,000 and $1,000; the percentages for the same two
classes. in the Western agricultural district alone, being
respectively 8 13 and los per cent. To what extent the
general average is dragged down by farms i'll adapted
for cultivation or incompetently managed. 1t is impos-
sible to say. A census Of shopkeepers prepared on the
same basis would probably produce very similar results,
but it would not prove that shopkeeping was necessarily
Improbable.
In a general way, we know that many farmers find it
difficult. to make a living from the soil, but that many
others. earn a satisfactory income, even with a fall in
wheat. Not long ago the prediction was freely made
that "small-ownership' farms would gradually disappear,
to be replaced by increasingly large units, operated with
up-to-date methods of scientific culture. The census
of 1890 will perhaps give a clue to this. In 1925 the
average acreage per farm, as computed by the census,
was less than in 1920.