DRY-FARMING CONGRESS, WICHITA, 1914 



113 



it to warn men that they must be vigilant to make the most of the forces 

 of nature in the production of food. 



No world statistics are available either of population growth or of the 

 growth of agricultural output. Little reliance can, I fear, be placed on 

 some recent calculations of statisticians going to show that the output of 

 food crops, taking the world as a whole, is increasing faster than the 

 number of inhabitants. The crop statistics of many countries, including 

 our own, are too uncertain, or at least were too uncertain during the 

 earlier years with which more recent years are compared, to warrant 

 any conclusions as to changes in world totals. One thing is certain. The 

 population of Europe, North and South America, and Australia — taken as 

 a whole — is increasing at the rate of at least 10 or 12 per cent per decade. 

 If that rate should be maintained throughout the Twentieth century it 

 would mean much more than doubling the population of those continents. 

 The world must work hard and work scientifically if it is to keep its food 

 supply abreast of such a vast increase of mouths to feed. 



Until recently this country itself left little pressure of population on 

 the means of subsistence. We had a rich new territory, thinly populated. 

 The fact that agricultural production grew each decade less rapidly than 

 population gave no occasion for immediate alarm. It meant merely the 

 advantageous diversification of our industries; the desirable growth of 

 manufactures and of commerce. We were still great exporters of food. 

 But today the situation is very different. We can see ahead of us a pos- 

 sible shortage. If present tendencies continue long we shall have to import 

 largely, not merely tropical and exotic foods but also those very foods 

 which have been the main products of our farms and ranges. 



Between 1900 and 1910 the population of the United States increased 

 21 percent. The number of farms increased only 11 percent; the rural 

 population increased 11 percent; the urban three times as fast — 34 per- 

 cent. The acreage planted to crops, including non-food crops as well as 

 food crops, increased 10 percent. This figure is probably the most reliable 

 index to the extension of the area of production. 



We should have less anxiety over this relatively slow extension of 

 crop area if farms were producing materially larger yields per acre than 

 before. As a matter of fact the last census found absolutely no increase 

 in the average production per acre between 1899 and 1909. By averaging 

 the percentages of increase in the quantities of the various crops, giving 

 to each a weight proportional to its importance, it is found that the total 

 quantity produced was just 10 percent greater in the later year than in 

 the earlier. The rate of increase in production was precisely the same 

 as that in acreage. That is, the yield per acre was stationary. Of course 

 there are good years and bad years in agriculture, but it is the opinion 

 of experts that, taking the country over and all crops together, a com- 

 parison between 1899 and 1909 is a fair comparison. 



Population thus increased during the first decade of the Twentieth cen- 

 tury twice as fast as crop production. Such a disparity cannot continue 



