1854. 



NEW ENGLAND FARMER. 



287 



cows gave you milk and butter in abundance at 

 all times, and your garden and orchard, fruits for 

 yourself and the children, and the neighbors, with- 

 out stint. Now, (I give actual market prices in 

 Washington) you buy one peck of potatoes for 

 '•three levies," or thirty-seven and a half cents, 

 beef at sixteen cents a pound, turkeys at from one 

 dollar and quarter to two dollars each, chickens, 

 with the shells scarcely ofl' their heads, not larger 

 than robins, at twenty-five cents each, Initter at 

 thirty-one cents a pound, and milk at eiglit cents 

 a quart, and so on to the end of the chapter. In 

 stead of enjoying the abundance of the earth, as 

 you have been accustomed to do, you begin to as- 

 sociate the idea of dollars and cents, with the food 

 on your taldc ; you are compelled to vex yourself 

 with economizing in the details of living, instead 

 of by system, and to feel j-our soul gradually nar- 

 rowing in, to a conformity with narrow circum- 

 stances. You find yourself a poorer man than 

 while upon your hard northern farm, poorer in 

 your animal means of living, poorer in comparison 

 with those around you, poorer in independence, in 

 prospects fur the future for yourself and family, 

 poorer in everything. 



We might follow this train of thouglit into fur- 

 ther details, did time allow it, but enough, it is 

 hoped, has been said, to induce an independent 

 Northern farmer to hesitate long, and consider 

 ■well, before he exchanges his position for any 

 place, where any master comes between him and 

 his Maker. — Country Gentleman. 



For the New Eni^land Farmer. 



PEOFITS OF FAKMING. 



Mr. Editoh : — Your correspondent ''D. C." may 

 think my answer to his "No. 4" too long delayed ; 

 the delay is for want of time only. I did not by my 

 question expect to compel him to use up so much of 

 his time or your paper — as the question is so "ex- 

 tremely indefinite" as "to be no question at all," 

 as "the profits or amount of produce," are so 

 "nearly the same that no argument can be in- 

 stituted between them," as the question is "logic- 

 ally absurd," and as he nevertheless concluded to 

 waive all objections and answer it, he might have 

 done so with less labor to himself, or less use of 

 your valuable paper. But without running into 

 the same error, 1 well know, and of course shall 

 admit that the "profits of farming" depend much 

 on the "amount produced," yai they do not en- 

 tirely ; the quality of tlie products, or the state of 

 the market, has much to do with it. Why is it 

 that New England i)caches s ell better than New 

 Jersey ones ? Is it not because they are better, 

 and if they are not better, because more arc raised 

 here then than there ? And were not our peaches 

 better than those of New Jersey, we could make 

 nothing comparatively by raising them, and yet 

 this ditferenee secures to the peach growers nearly 

 all their profits. 



Again, it sometimes happens that the supply is 

 so much greater than the demand, that nothing 

 or next to nothing is made. Take the same arti- 

 cle : 1 know of many farmers iu this vicinity, and 

 I presume your correspondent knows more tlian 

 one, who could not give away their peaches last 

 year, and busliels were fed to tlic hogs, or rotted 

 on the ground, and Ijushels more were sold for 

 the lowest prices, just what was oficrcd. So in 



other things— a few years since, Vermont farmers 

 were all getting rich by raising wool ; they en- 

 larged their farms and their flocks, and raised not 

 only more, but more relatively to their acres. 

 Wliat was the consequence? They kept their 

 wool on hand, and the greater the amount of the 

 product the less the profits. 



Again, there maj' be two nirmers side by side, 

 and their crops may bo equal in amount, and yet 

 one will make much larger profits than the other 

 — he will sell so much better, that he will out- 

 strip his neighbor entirely — and no one will deny 

 but that this selling is one essential part of farm- 

 ing, or that Avithout a tact at tliis, a man is no 

 farmer at all. 



Two farmers in the same town may have farms 

 which arc adapted to difiercnt products ; one may 

 be able to get a much larger crop than the other, 

 and yet the small crop may be the most profitable, 

 for the reason that the demand for that is enough 

 greater to make all the difierence, perhaps more. 

 Now we can, in many respects, produce articles of 

 better quality here, than at the West; we raise 

 better corn, pork, butter, cheese, tobacco, fruits, 

 and probably garden vegeti\l)les, and it may be 

 some other things. Indeed, tlic West cannot com- 

 pete with us in the quality of farm products gen- 

 erally, if they can in any particular ; a moderate 

 share of information makes this too obvious for 

 argument — nor also get as high a price. All will 

 admit that we get a liigher price for all or nearly 

 all our products. How then can we make as 

 much ? I do not mean, nor is that the argument, 

 wliether a man here can make as much on one 

 acre, as a "Western farmer can on two. It is sim- 

 ply Avhicli of tlie two, taking the whole expenses 

 into account, will have gained the most money. 



Now this has been ascertained as nearly, per- 

 haps, as it is possible to do, and you have pub- 

 lished the whole thing in 1854, and subsequent 

 information has not, that I have seen, esscutially 

 changed this. It will then be seen that the de- 

 cision of this question is clearly in favor of the 

 New Englaml former. In some articles, such as 

 wheat and corn, the Western farmer will receive 

 more, for he Avill cultivate more acres; the popu- 

 lation is sparse there, and lie has room to do it ; 

 while here, farms are small because the popula- 

 tion is dense, and yet some of these small farms 

 have enriched their owners, much more tiian 

 Western farms ; it may not be in corn or wheat, 

 !)ut in other farm products to which the land is 

 adapted, and this is the highest evidence of our 

 abilty to compete with "W^estern farmers ; and 

 even in the articles of Avhcat and corn, there are 

 cases in New England of farmers raising as much 

 per acre as in tlic West. But your correspondent 

 says he did not naean that Ave could not compete 

 with farmers at the West under any circumstan- 

 ces and he admits that Avith certain helps wa miglit 

 CA'cn exceed them ; but docs he not see he is in a 

 circle ■? and that he might as aa-c11 say at once, 

 that we can compete AA'ith, if not exceed them. 



I do not think I should have noticed "D. C.'s" 

 article I)ut for tAvo reasons — one is that it AA'as cal- 

 culated to prejudice our young men against farm- 

 ing, Avhich is tlie most natural, moral and healthy 

 employment, and Avlien conducted with skill, has 

 proved the most lucrative in the end ; another 

 reason is, tliat it Avas calculated to discontent men 

 Avitii NcAv England farming. Our citizens have 



