THE FOOD CRISIS AND AMERICANISM 83 



The net result of this investigation was to show that 

 even at these inflated figures, there was a return of 

 only $y 2 per cent, of the money invested by farm 

 owners, or three to three and a half dollars per acre. 

 Changing no other figures, but reducing the yield to 

 be in keeping with the average yield reported by the 

 Department of Agriculture itself, it would reduce the 

 yield of corn 50 per cent. ; the yield of wheat 34 per 

 cent.; and the yield of oats 39 per cent.; and would 

 show that instead of receiving an income, the farmer 

 was paying from $3 to $4 per acre and taxes for the 

 privilege of using his own land. Waiving the ques- 

 tion of yield, but deducting the value of the plant food 

 elements taken from the soil by the three cereals 

 named, it would show that the farmer must still pay 

 $3 to $5 per acre and taxes for' the use of his land. 

 In short, correcting figures as to yield and making due 

 allowance for soil elements removed, their experi- 

 ment would show that the farmer is actually paying 

 from $4 to $6 at least per acre rent upon his own 

 land. 



In response to an inquiry why this element of soil 

 depreciation was omitted, a letter from the Department 

 of Agriculture said, "If we would deduct the value 

 of these elements, we would soon reach a point where 

 land would be valued at a very low price." A most 

 astounding admission. In substance, that in solving 

 scientific problems of far-reaching importance in the 

 greatest of all our industries, the United States De- 

 partment of Agriculture must reach desired or precon- 

 ceived conclusions, even if vital facts be omitted to do 

 so. The Department did not seem to know whether 



