farmers' institutes. 651 



The future of Africa as a wlieat producing country is as uncertain as 

 tlie final outcome of the Boer war. 



After the above svirvey of the present and prospective wheat condition 

 of the world, let us return home and examine the statistics of the annual 

 production of the Queen and King of cereals— wheat and corn— and also 

 note our annual exports, and then feel proud that we live in a country 

 called the "granary of the world," the liberality of whose citizens feeds 

 the famine stricken of all nations. More especially should farmers of 

 Kosciusko County feel satisfied, because we occupy the geographical center 

 of the richest part of Uncle Sam's wheat garden and a mighty rich corner 

 of his corn patch. Then why should the farmers of this county entertain 

 the idea of not growing the usual acreage of wheat? Because of a few 

 failures conditioned on causes partly beyond their control, but not likely 

 to be permanent? As well might they conclude not to grow corn, or 

 potatoes, or clover. Should we quit gi'owing wheat because of low 

 prices in recent years? I answer no; because neither past nor present 

 prices govern future prices of any farm commodity. The principal fac- 

 tors affecting the price of wheat are supply, demand, transportation 

 charges and speculation. 



Whether the farmers of Kosciusko County can afford to grow wheat 

 at present prices depends upon the farm, farmer and season; and this will 

 always be foimd true without much regard to prevailing prices. The 

 farmer growing twenty bushels of wheat per acre at present prices, 70 

 cents per bushel, can afford it, and he should not be a loser by growing- 

 fifteen bushels; but he can not afford to grow five bushels per acre of 

 dollar wheat. 



Do we of northern Indiana realize the favorable conditions of both 

 soil and climate for growing winter wheat? The few remaining pioneer 

 farmers can tell us what bountiful crops resulted from a mere scratching 

 of the soil and hand scattering of the seed; and how the grain was har- 

 vested, threshed and hauled twenty to forty miles and sold for fifty cents 

 per bushel. Do we fully realize the effect upon the originally productive 

 soil of half a century's cropping; of denuding the land of its timber, there- 

 by depriving the soil of its annual coat of moisture— conserving, humus- 

 making, soil-enriching forest leaves; and how much the constant evaporat- 

 ing surface of marshes, ponds and lakes has been reduced by drainage; 

 and how quickly a rainfall runs off bare ground made hard by cropping 

 the spongy humus out of it; and what water sinks into the ground is 

 rapidly absorbed by the drier air. These changed conditions of soil— and 

 I may add climate, too— were brought about, not by nature, but by the 

 farmers themselves. Are they to blame for it? The timber had to be 

 removed to grow crops; the marshes had to be drained to have better 

 health or, pei-haps, to get more rich land. As our pioneer farmers did 

 we would have done under like conditions— but probably not have worked 

 so hard. 



