1854. 



NEW ENGLAND FARMER. 



211 



For the New England Farmer. 



FARMING IN NEW ENGLAND-NO. 4. 



I turn aside this week from the regular series of 

 papers on New England farming, to answer "Ag- 

 rlcola," who puts to me in your paper of the 11th 

 instant, the following inquiry : 



"Will your correspondent 'D. C inform your 

 readers in what respects the New England farmer 

 cannot compete with the Western farmer, whether 

 in the projits or amount of produce?^' 



On a close examination of this question, it ap 



em, but that he cannot do so, without bringing 

 to his aid the helps of science, and of superior indus- 

 try and skill. Summoning these to his assistance, 

 he will approximate much more nearly to his 

 Western competitor, in valuable results, if he does 

 not actually exceed him. "Agricola," therefore, 

 has presented a question which, in its own terms, 

 is logically absurd, and one which docs not grow 

 out of my argument, considered in the conditions 

 in which it is stated. 



But, waiving both these difiBcuItios in the way 

 of making any direct reply to his inquiry, there 



pears to be extremely indefinite, and perhaps it are certain well authenticated and stubtorn facts, 

 may be said to be no question at all. The "profits" which throw much light upon the general subject 

 of farming are so necessarily intolved in the " .... 



"amount of produce" raised, that tlie two things 

 cannot be separated, and therefore do not admit 

 of a separate consideration, or of any direct com- 

 parison. I might, therofore, with entire respect to 

 "Agricola," abstain from any argument upon the 

 subject, till he presents the point of his diflBculty 

 in a more tangible form, or in a shape which in- 

 volves some logical consistency and some real is- 

 sue. How can any man institute any comparison 

 between Eastern and Western farming, so as to 

 show whether the former can "compete" with the 

 Latter, unless the "profits" of both are estimated, 

 and how can such an estimate be made, unless 

 the "amount produced," at the East and West,re- 

 epectively, be taken into the account? If the 

 Eastern farmer can raise one bushel of com as 

 cheaply as the Western, after the difference of in- 

 terest in their landed investments — the difference 

 in the price of labor and other expenses, the dif- 

 ference in the prices which they get for the bush- 

 eljWhen it is sold, are considered ; it does not fol- 

 low that they et;ind on the same level, because the 

 much greater ^'^a/nount'"' which the Western farmer 

 can raise on his more numerous and richer acres, 

 may most materially affect their relative incomes. 

 It is an admitted fact that a farmer here who 

 raises seventy-five bushels of corn to the acre, re- 

 alizes a greater percentage of profit, than his 

 neighbor who raises only forty bushels to the acre, 

 for the expenses to the one, relatively to the 

 ^^ amount produced, ^^ are less than those to the 

 other. It is on this principle that we all regard 

 those farmers in New England, who always raise 

 the largest crops on the same number of acres, as 

 the best farmers. They are the best farmers eith- 

 er because their lands are the best, or because they 

 are cultivated tlie best, or both. On either sup- 

 position, they are the best farmers, because they 

 bring about the greatest results, relatively to the 

 expenses they incur. 



Precisely so it is, mutatis mutandis, or as be- 

 tween the Eastern and the Western farmer, only 

 that the Western lias this immense additional ad- 

 vantage in his hands, he can put many more acres 

 every year into corn, relatively to the JEastern far- 

 mer, than the best Eastern farmers can, relatively 

 to their competing neighbors. The "profits" of 

 farming, then, both at the East and the West, are 

 80 intimately connected with, or rather so indisso- 

 lubly involved in tlie "amount produced," that 

 no intelligent or intelligible argument can be in- 

 stituted between them. 



But I would recall the attention of "Agricola" 

 to the real and obvious meaning of my argument, 

 on which his inquiry is based. I did not say that 

 the New England farmer cannot, under any cir- 

 cumstances, successfully compete with the Weat^ 



under consideration between us. 



In the reports made to the Commissioner of Pa- 

 tents for the year 1852, by some of the most intel- 

 ligent farmers in New England and the Western 

 States, they state the average amount of wiieat 

 vnd corn raised to the acre, in their respective lo- 

 calities, and also the cost of production. There is 

 a singular and wide discrepancy in the results, 

 among the farmers of Maine and Vermont, for 

 example, and an equal want of agreement among 

 the farmers at the West, as to the average amount 

 raised per acre, and the expense of producing the 

 same. These statistics are therefore by no means 

 so accurate and reliable as they should be, and 

 yet some conclusions, approximative to the truth, 

 can be gathered from them. By a somewhat care- 

 ful collation of these numerous and discrepant re- 

 ports, we come, I apprehend, to this general re- 

 sult. With regard to the article of wheat, in our 

 imperfect and generally unscientific methods of 

 cultivating the soil, we make no approach to a 

 successful competition with the Western farmer, 

 either as it regards the amount raised, or the cost 

 per bushel. New England does not raise one fif- 

 tieth part of the wheat which is consumed by her 

 own population. We should undoubtedly raise a 

 much larger quantity, if it could be done profit- 

 ably, but it cannot be done profitably, so long 

 as our modes of cultivation are so imperfect, and 

 the Western soils continue to be so highly adapted 

 to its production. It is most manifest, therefore, 

 that New England does not now successfully com- 

 pete with the West in the raising of wheat, 

 "either in the profits or amount of produce. ^^ 



In respect to corn, pork, beef, hides, wool, live 

 hogs, butter and cheese, we stand in a somewhat 

 better relation to the West, though the immense 

 quantitiL>s of these articles which find their way 

 from beyond the Hudson to the Eastern markets, 

 will astonish any one who will examine the statis- 

 tical returns on the subject. Of all these articles, 

 we import for our own consumption a far greater 

 amount, than we export of our own production, 

 for theconsumiitionof othei-s. Indeed, we export 

 none at all of our own producing. In not one of 

 these important articles of living, do the farmers 

 in New England supply our own wants, much 

 less do we have any to spaye for our neighbors in 

 Ohio, Wisconsin, Virginia, New York, Ireland or 

 England. So long, therefore, as our present modfr 

 of cultivation continues, it is as clear as the sun 

 in mid heaven, that notwithstanding the higher 

 prices which obtain in New England, wc can 

 never successfully compete with o.ur Western 

 friends, in any uf the gresvt birtinclies of agricul- 

 ture, That can Iks done, only b^ superior science, 

 groiiter skill and more untiring industry, n. c. 



Waltham, March, 18^4. 



