t Service 



;i 



ich wiser 

 nd of ris- 

 can point 

 period of 

 ther with 

 diminish- 

 7ant fact- 

 •e the In- 

 irm pros- 

 nomenon. 



[rector of 

 ricultural 

 ;e in the 

 ; woven it 

 n." The 

 ue, espec- 

 It's well 

 lie is corn- 

 time and 

 ves a good 



ounty 



abt notice 

 ace of the 



bjr Kable 

 s, in Ogle 



has been 



ts in some 

 icipally to 

 is than in 

 )e done in 

 llent mail 

 nt Morris 

 same nar- 

 Jelivery in 

 ;ofore. 



ilarities of 



Octobw 10, 1925 



The lllinoit Agricnltar*! Anodatiop RECOUP 



Pie 8 





Thia picture repr«s«nU a partial panorama of Mr. Lowden*« Sinnistippi Farm on tlie Rock River» near Oregon, Ogle county. Stnniutppi Farm contains 4»S00 acres, one third 

 under crop, one third pasture, and one third in use in a reforestation plan in which Mr. Lowden is especially interested. (World's Work photo.) 



Farmer *s Income 3.6 

 Per Cent on Capital 



— Lowden 



(Continued from page 1, Col. 5.) 



if the olfl methods had continued the 

 great industrial development of our 

 country >voutd have been impossible. 

 Only und4r a system of commercialized 

 agriculture are the farmers of the coun- 

 try able to produce enough to feed the 

 constantly increasing population of our 

 cities and towns. As a result of com- 

 mercialised agriculture, the per capita 

 production of the American farmer has 

 constantly increased and still is increas- 

 ing. 



Farmers Not Inefficient 



We hear much these days of the in- 

 efficiency of the American farmer. How 

 far this is from the truth let the figures 

 attest. The Year Book of the United 

 States Department of Agriculture for 

 1921 is authority for the statement that 

 in America are found less than 4 per 

 cent, of the farmers and farm laborers 

 of the world. And yet the American 

 farmers produce nearly 70 per cent, of 

 the world's corn, 60 per cent, of the 

 world's cotton, 50 per cent, of the 

 world's tobacco, 25 per cent, of the 

 world's oats and hay, 20 per cent, of 

 the world's wheat and flaxseed, 13 per 

 cent, of the world's barley, 7 per cent, 

 of the world s potatoes. 



The average production of cereals per 

 person engaged in agriculture in the 

 United States is 12 tons, while for the 

 rest of the world it is about 1.4 tons 

 This has largely been possible by what 

 we call commercialized agriculture, and 

 this in turn has made possible the 

 phenominal industrial growth of our 

 country. It is clear that without com- 

 mercialized agriculture, the, whole 

 mighty fabric of our tndustriarand na- 

 tional life would fall. 



In the simpler age. cost of produc- 

 tion did not concern the farmer much. 

 When he produced enough to feqd and 

 clothe his family, he had accomplished 

 bis main purpose. ' 



Farmer is a Business Man 



To-day all is changed. The farmer is 

 a business man bound by the laws which 

 operate in other business flelds. His 

 cash expenditures are large. If he is to 

 produce enough of food and clothing for 

 the teeming millions in the industrial 

 centers he, too, must employ industrial 

 means in, production. The scythe has 

 given way to the mower, the simple 

 plow to the gang plow, the cradle to the 

 powerful self-binder, and the flail to the 

 threshing machine. He must employ 

 fertilizers if he would keep up the fer- 

 tility of his soil. Social needs of his 

 community have required better drain- 

 age, better roads, and better schools, 

 and all these have entailed a further 

 burden upon him in the form of taxes. 

 He now h^s a large annual cash outlay. 

 He is a producer no longer for himself 

 mainly, but to supply the needs of this 

 industrial ^age. The surplus wh^ch he 

 produces M now the important thing. 



Cost of fjroduction, therefore, has be- 

 'Come as vital a question with the farmer 

 as with the manufacturer. And yet 

 when he complains that he is not receiv- 

 ing cost of production for the things he 

 sells he is derided by the economists and 

 teld by the business world that the 

 prices of farm products are controlled 



Sinnissippi Farm is a home for the finest Holsteins. 

 (World's Work photo.) 



not by cost of production bat only by 

 the law of supply and demand. It must 

 be conceded, though, I think, that no 

 one, farmer or manufacturer, can go on 

 producing indefinitely in this commercial 

 world at less than cost of production. 

 Does it not follow that some way must 

 be found, if we are to insure future 

 adequate supply of food and clothing, 

 by which the producers of these prime 

 necessities can secure at least the cost 

 to them of producing those necessities? 

 Short Crop Worth More Than 

 Bumper Crop 



Under present conditions we have this 

 anomaly: the farmer is not nearly so 

 !ikely to suffer from a short crop as 

 rrom a bumper crop. As Professors Ely 

 and Morehouse say : "A general good 

 season may bring a bumper crop, a fact 

 that is heralded by the metropolitan 

 press as a sign of the prosperity of the 

 farmer and of the nation. As a matter 

 of fact, a bumper crop usually brings 

 ruinously low prices." 



A year ago this summer there was a 

 drought in the Southwest which was in- 

 juring the cotton crop. The govern- 

 ment estimated the crop of the year at 

 12.400,000 bales. And then the drought 

 was broken. The goverhment got out 

 another report and this time estimated 

 the yield at 13,000,000 bales, an increase 

 of less than 5 per cent. Prices at once 

 fell about 20 per cent. If these prices 

 reflected real values, the loss to the cot- 

 ton farmers of the South, due to a 

 timely rain, was something like $300,- 

 000,000. And yet there was a dearth of 

 cotton such as had not existed since the 

 Civil War. The press had been filled 

 with fears of a cotton famine. 



Two years ago there was a bumper 

 crop of corn. As a result, the price de- 

 clined so low that it was cheaper in 

 some parts of the Dakotas and Ne- 

 braska, and even Iowa, to burn corn for 

 fuel than to buy coal. Last year, ow- 

 ing to a cold, wet summer, the corn 

 crop was small in yield and inferior in 

 quality. The government estimated the 

 crop at 20 per cent, less than the 

 bumper crop of the year before. As a 

 result, according to the government's 

 figures, the smaller crop' of defective 

 corn was worth $350,000,000 more in the 

 markets than the crop of the year be- 

 fore. The cold, wet summer which so 

 seriously injured the com crop was very 

 favorable for the growth of grasses in 

 the meadows and pastures, and so dairy 

 products slightly increased as compared 

 with the year before. This increase re- 

 sulted in the dairy farmers receiving 

 many million dollars less for their prod- 

 uct than they had received the previous 

 year. And yet, during this whole period 

 there was not a Sufficient surplus of 

 dairy products on hand at any one time 

 to supply the needs of the people of 

 the United States for a single month. 



Limiting Production 



IT IS often urged that the farmer 

 should avoid producing a. surplus and 

 should limit his production to the actual 

 needs of the current year. This cannot 

 be done with any assurance of a suffi- 

 cient supply for future years. This 

 year a largely increased acreage was 

 planted to cotton. Crops started off 

 well. Many feared so large a crop as to 

 demoralize prices. And then came a 

 severe drought in Texas and Oklahoma, 

 which had been producing about half of 

 all our cotton. The government recently 

 has issued a statement of the probable 

 production for the 

 year. If this state- 

 ment proves correct, 

 there will be barely 

 enough cotton raised 

 this year to meet the 

 needs of the year. 



Suppose now^ that 

 the cotton farmers 

 had planned just to 

 meet the actual 

 needs. The drought 

 still would have come 

 and the world would 

 be faced with a cot- 

 ton shortage. And so 

 with reference to 

 the cereals. The 

 farmer cannot know 

 in advance whether 

 there will be too 

 much or too little 

 rain or too much or 

 too Uttlt httt, and if 



he attempted always to produce just 

 enough to meet the demand, there 

 would be years in which our people 

 would go hungry or import their food. 

 If, therefore, we would be a self-suf- 

 ficing nation, we must at times produce 

 a surplus of the staple crops. This is 

 for the common good. Under existing 

 conditions, however, as I have pointed 

 out, this surplus becomes a heivy bur- 

 den to the farmer. 



Some economists see nothing illogical 

 or evil in such a situation. They say 

 that it is an inevitable result — the re- 

 sult of the law of supply and demand. 

 I cannot quite accede to this proposition. 

 It answers itself. For, under that law, 

 if the world will pay a larger price for 

 ten bushels of wheat than it will pay 

 for fifteen, it must be because it pre- 

 fers ten bushels of wheat to fifteen 

 bushels, and the supply, therefore, will 

 adjust itself to meet that demand. This 

 means a constantly increasing cost to 

 the consumer. 



Surplus ts Inevitable 



It is clear, therefore, I think, that a 

 surplus is inevitable — and desirable if 

 we would have a nation self-sufficing in 

 the essentials of life. It, therefore, 

 should not operate to the disadvantaee 

 of him who produces that surplus. The 

 nation now stands, in a sense, in the 

 same relation to surplus as did the in- 

 dividual farmer of primitive times. Just 

 as the flowing barns and bins of that 

 time were an evidence of the prosperity 

 of the individual fanner, so now an 

 abundance of food and raw materials 

 for clothing ought not to be considered 

 as impoverishing the nation that pos- 

 sesses them. The nation, however, 

 should employ this abundance wisely and 

 prudently. It should hold sufficient for 

 its own needs as against a less fruitful 

 time and it should aim to dispose of 

 the surplus beyond that in the markets 

 of the world upon the most advan- 

 tageous terms possible. 



The problem is how to obtain this ob- 

 ject. It is clear that the individual 

 farmer cannot do this alone. If the 

 n-od'icers of any farm commodity were 

 completely organized, it is conceivable 

 that they might accomplish this very 

 end. Their collective credit would en- 

 able them to store and hold for less 

 bountiful years such of the surplus as 

 prudence dictated. They would then 

 consider collectively the most profitable 

 disposition in the world's markets of 

 that portion remaining. However, they 

 would not permit the exportable surplus 

 to determine the price for domestic con- 

 sumption. The domestic price would 

 then be determined largely in the same 

 way as is the domestic price of manu- 

 factured articles. Capital and services 

 would receive the same reward in agri- 

 culture as in other fields of production. 



The Progress of CO'Operation 



ORGANIZATION of the farmers for 

 the purpose of marketing their 

 crops collectively is progressing. I be- 

 lieve that some day it wil] cover the en- 

 tire field. Denmark has shown how, 

 under the most adverse circumstances, it 

 cap transform the agriculture of a peo- 

 plf. Wherever cooperative marketing 

 is farthest advanced, either in the 

 United States or abroad, there you find 

 agriculture in its best estate; violent 

 fluctuations in the markets eliminated; 

 better prices to the producers without 

 *n increase in cost and sometimes with 

 an actual decrease to the consumer; an 

 approach to standardization of product; 

 a more intelligent effort to adjust pro- 

 duction to probable demand; a finer and 

 more satisfying community life. 



It will be many years, however, be- 

 fore the cooperatives of the staple farm 

 products are sufficiently organized to 

 take care of this ever-present problem 

 of surplus. And this is a situation 

 which, if left to itself, tends constantly 

 to grow worse. For, as Professor Ely 

 points out, when a manufacturer finds 

 that he cannot market his product for 

 cost of production, he can stop or reduce 

 production and at the same time reduce 

 expenses. The farmer cannot do this. 

 His expenses largely go on whether his 

 acreage planted is somewhat smaller or 

 not. Having to meet these expenses 

 anyway, the lower the price the larger 

 must his acreage be to accomplish this. 



If the producer)* of any farm product 

 are only partly organized and attempt 

 to take care of the surplus, the pro- 



ducers of that commodity who are not m*re than half of so essential a commo 



members of the cooperative receive the 

 full benefit of the improved price with- 

 out bearing any of the burdens incident 

 to the surplus. To illustrate: the to- 

 bacco cooperatives have been very suc- 

 cessful in recent years. When farm 

 prices broke in 1920, the tobacco grow- 

 ers were among the severest sufferers. 

 Tobacco was selling far below cost of 

 production. And then cooperative mar- 

 keting associations were formed 



djty as cot'.on has come to be in the in- 

 dustrial world. It in it«Hf should make a 

 nation unique among the nations of the 

 world. One would suppose that such 

 an, advantage would confer great pros- 

 perity upon the cot^n farmers of the 

 nation. What is the fact? A few weeks 

 act) I drove for a distance of almost 

 two hundred miles from Memphis 

 through the heart of the Miattssippi 

 delta. We are told by competent au- 



Through their largely increased bargain- tharity that there is no like area of 

 ing power these associations were able fertile lands suHed to the production of 



to sell the bulk of their crop at re 

 munerative prices. To accomplish this, 

 it was necessary to withhold a surplus 

 temporarily from the market. That en- 

 tailed a necessary expense. The non - 

 member, therefore, was able to avail 

 himself of the better prices which the 

 association had established without 

 ^bearing any part of the burden of hand- 

 ling the surplus. And thus, though the 

 members of the cooperatives themselves 

 received much larger returns than if 

 they had not organized, the non-mem- 

 bers have profited' even more. It is 

 difficult to maintain the morale of an 

 organization when outsiders receive the 

 benefits of the organization in a larger 

 measure than do the members them- 

 selves. 



Believes Thorough Organisation 

 Will Come 



Some day the farmers will be so 

 thoroughly organized. I hope and be- 

 lieve, that they will be able successfully 

 to cope with the surplus. But that day 

 has not come yet. Meantime, are we to 

 sit idle awaiting the further depletion 

 of our soils and the ruin of our agri- 

 culture until we are incapable of meet- 

 ing the needs of our increasing popula- 

 tion? For when that time comes, as 

 the economists point out, there will be 

 another maladjustment. Then prices of 

 farm products will be abnormally high. 



We are greatly concerned as a people, 

 and properly so, over the waste of our 

 riMtural resources. No one not actually 

 familiar with the farms of America can 

 know how rapidly we have been exhaust- 

 ing the fertility of the soil. Improved 

 methods of farming and improved seed 

 have tended to counterbalance the de- 

 pletion of our soil and so have blinded 

 us to the fact. I think, however, that 

 most students of agronomy will agree 

 that at least 25 per cent, of our lands 

 now growing crops should be either in 

 pasture or in legumes if we would pre- 

 vent the furthet depreciation of our soil. 

 The natural fertility of our com and 

 wheat lands has diminished constantly 

 since they were first broken by the plow. 

 It is only improved drainage, better 

 seed, and better cultivation that have 

 enabled the farmers to go on at all. 



Let us consider our cotton for a mo- 

 ment. Last year the world's production 

 was 24,000,000 bales. We produced some- 

 thing under 14.000.000 bales The next 

 largest producer is India, but India 

 grows an inferior quality of cotton, 

 which is useful principally in the Ori- 

 ental trade. Of our crop last year, we 

 exported about eight and a quarter mil- 

 lion bales. Without this cotton, the 

 cotton mills of Europe would have been, 

 idle and industrial chaos would have 

 come. Without American cotton, Eng- 

 land could hardly survive And yet we 

 have permitted the spinners of Europe 

 largely to determine the pi;ice for this 

 prime necessity of life. 



American Cotton 



Controlled in 



England 



During a large 

 part of ^he time in 

 the last half-centurj*, 

 cotton planters have 

 been able to hold on 

 only, as we are told. 

 because of the un- 

 paid labor of women 

 and children in the 

 field. And during alt 

 this time the Eng- 

 lish Government and 

 the English spinners 

 have spent millions 

 yearly to ^open up 

 new sources of sup- 

 ply, with no appreci- 

 able results. It is a 

 stupendous thing to 

 produce considerably 



cotton in all the civilized world, not even 

 extepting ther famous Valley of the 

 Nile. I was credibly informed that half 

 of those incomparable lands were in the 

 hatid? of creditors. Such sales of land 

 as are being made there are for lesa 

 than the cost of improvements. 



We produce, as I have said, 70 per 

 cent, of the world's com — hence the 

 corn lands of the United States jhould 

 be one of its chief assets. And yet 

 corn lands have sold in Iowa — the pre- 

 mier corn state — in the present year for 

 but little more than the cost of improve- 

 ments. In the South we say cotton \t 

 king; in the Middle West it is com we 

 have crowned. But these royalties are 

 bdffeted about by the tradem of the 

 world. They have been made to jrteld 

 immense profit to every oi.e but those 

 who produce them. 



What Brazil Did With Coffee 



OTHER nations have had the prohkm -- 

 of a sur >lus of natural products 

 and hsve; set about trying to solve it. 

 A few years »go the coffee growers of 

 Brazil wee in dire distress, tr-^estrict- 

 ed competition among them threatened 

 to bring bankruptcy. The nation saw 

 that only by centralized selling for ex- 

 port could they hope to adjust the sup- 

 ply to the world demand. To effect 

 this, they adopted a somewhat intricate 

 plan called valorisation, which has been 

 in operation for a number of years. 

 That it has resulted in stabilizing the 

 cofee markets of the world, with s liv- 

 ing price to the producer, every one 

 knows. 



A few years ago the robber planters - 

 in the eastern colonies of Great Britain 

 were well-nigh bankrupt because of the 

 low prices they were receiving for their 

 rubber. They succeeded in interesting 

 the British Government in their trou- 

 bles. The Colonial Office of that gov- " 

 eramen^ worked out what was known 

 as the Stevenson plan. Under that 

 plab, though different means were adopt- 

 ed, the aim was the same, namely to 

 adjust the supply of rubt>er in the mar- 

 kets of the world to the actual demands 

 of commerce. All the world knows the 

 result The price of raw rubber has 

 greatly increased and these far-off col- 

 onies are among the most prosperous 

 portions of the British Empire. In tho 

 case of rubber, it is ptobahl*- they have 

 gone too far, and in any plan which wc 

 might adopt we would be wise to at'oid 

 the excesses to which the British Gov- 

 ernment seems to have gone. 



Britain Did It With Rubber 



The American farmer is interested in 

 rubber too. for he is obliged to use auto- 

 mobiles and trucks in his business. When 

 he complains of the hich price he pays 

 for tires, he is told that it is due to 

 the way in which the British Govem- 

 metit has interfered with the law of . 

 supply and demand. He begins to doubt 

 (Continued on page i. Col. t.) 



1 



A VMW «| R*dE Rlwr BMv lianhsippi Fn 

 (World's Work pbete.) . 



I": 



