The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1946-10-18

4 War and Peace" that u. S. farm GU
I, put was 1890 higher in 1914 than tt
average for the prewar period, 1913
: 49, This is the most accurate measul
that has yet been made of the wartim
increase in farm production, and til
the authors analyze regional and Gro
variations, without any effort to d.
, termine how this increase was di
tributed over farms of different sizes
, the lions share of the increase az
! tually came from the bigger farms.
How was this sharp increase i
wartime production achieved? TIL
usual explanations given during tn
war were good weather" and 'longe
hours of work. but these explana
lions only serve to obscure the rapit
growth of mechanization
In their study, Barton and Cooper
conclude that only about 17To of the
total increase can be attributed tt
favorable weather" They find thai
hired farm workers put in an average
workweek of 614 hours in June Of
1914 as compared with 55.4 in June OF
1871, while farm operators increased
their own workday by about 7/10 of
an hour on the average. Like all the
recent Department of Agriculture
studies, their investigation concludes
that increased mechanization was the
chief factor in making possible the
marked wartime expansion of farm
output
During the war years, the number
of hired workers in agriculture con-
tinued on it's long-term downward
trend and dropped 142%o between
1899 and 1914. At the same time, the
number of unpaid family workers
showed a decline of 4.19o and the
Bureau of the Census reports that on
January 1, 1916 there were a quarter
of million fewer farmers in the
United States than on January 1, 1910.
Thus, the wartime increase in farm
production was achieved with fewer
farm workers, fewer unpaid family
workers and fewer farmers.
With the march of mechanization
has come a sharp increase in the pro-
of labor not only through
the use of more machinery and cleo
tricity but also through the use of
more fertilizer, lime, improved crop
higher-yielding seeds and
better facilities. All of this means
arger capital investments and less
abor-in short, the highest and most |
intensive capitalist development of |
agriculture that the world has ever
seen.
In their BAE study, Barton and |
Cooper estimate that the production
# the large 1914 crop would have re-
Iuired 3 billion additional man-hours
# labor if it had been produced with
939 techniques and under 1889 con-
itions. They refer to this as "sav
ng" of 3 billion man-hours, but it
nust also be viewed as representing
n ominous displacement of man.
over in agriculture.
BAE Figures Err
Though the chief economists of the
'AE are now waking up to the, rapid
,artime increase in mechanization
nd are belatedly debunking earlier
lusions, which pictured the farmers
s producing more with less and less
everything" they still seriously I'M {
the extent of this mech s
nization. Tractors increased by one {
,urth from 1910 to 1914" Barton and 9
Copper declared in December of 1945, !
nd Sherman E. Johnson in BAE I
udy, Changes in Farming in War e
i'd Peace" published six months v
ter, said, 1.-THE number of tractors t
/ farms increased $40 from 1910 to ?
AS" p
Now that the much more accurate e
cures from the 1916 Census are be-
ming available it is possible to e
leck some of these BAE estimates. lr
he Bureau of the Census reports s
at there were $50 more tractors on b
rms in 1915 than in 1940-not $40 f,
the BAE estimated. Instead of g. il
$1,000 tractors on farms in 1915, as Il
g BAE figures indicate, the census O
turns show that on January 1, 1915 Ii
ere were already 2,425,000 tractors
farms. s.
Thus, Sherman E. Johnson's BAE n
innate that there will be nearly 2, F
$1,000 tractors on farms in 1850" had {
obably already been fulfilled before
even ventured his statistical "pre- Il
ction." Moreover, Johnson's reported h
hrinkage in numbers" of trucks on b,
rms ''during the war years" certain al
does not jibe with the census re-
rms. Instead of the "shrinkage" in
Gated by Johnson's BAE figures, ),
g Bureau of the Census reports a -
% increase in motor trucks on =
ms from 1910 to 1916. Hardly =,
.
These u. S. Department Of Agricul- =
e studies not only underestimate g.
} rate of farm mechanization but ~
cause of their unwillingness to ana &c
e this mechanization and increased :,
by sizes of farm, they ~ -
O serve to conceal the fact that =. =.
great majority of farms are being -
t woefully behind. Moreover, no - -.
empt has been made by the Depart ~
mt Of Agriculture's experts to deter -
ne how many farms have been con- IS
idated during the war years and %
at the trend has been in the opera =
n of multiple farm units.
What Is Ahead? ar
With less and less labor-power ce
,ded to raise more and more farm DR.
,duce, what is the prospect for the of
ependent, family-size farm? With de
flame cultivator and the mecnan- hi
| cotton picker advancing into the GU