94 



WHEAT VS FRUIT. 



Essay by Genekal N. P. Chipman, Red Bluff. 



WHEAT GROWING IN CALIFORNIA. 



I have been requested to submit some observations upon the issue of 

 wheat vs. fruit. 



In the sense that wheat growing and fruit growing are antagonistic, and 

 that one or the other must cease in this State, I must decline to discuss the 

 question. There can be no antagonism, and should be none between these 

 great industries. Both are important, and both must continue. In the 

 evolution of California, her second stage was the wheat era, during which, 

 in one year at least, 1880, she stood foremost among the States of the 

 Union, producing fifty-five million bushels; thus showing the marvelous 

 resources of our soil, and our ability to lead in whatever we find adapted 

 to both soil and climate. 



The question I shall discuss is, whether we should continue wheat grow- 

 ing as our chief agricultural industry, or whether we should encourage and 

 develop our fruit industry to the curtailment of our wheat area and wheat 

 output. 



Our soil is the prime source of our wealth, and should be so utilized as 

 to yield its highest and best results. 



Observation teaches and statistics show that constant and successive 

 croppings of wheat impoverish the soil and diminish the average yield in 

 direct ratio with the persistency and close succession of the croppings. 

 This is shown in the comparatively recent virgin soils of Dakota and other 

 western wheat regions. 



President Stickney, of the Chicago, St. Paul, and Kansas City Railroad, 

 recently stated at a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce of St. Paul, 

 that the average wheat crop in northern Minnesota and Dakota had fallen 

 to twelve bushels an acre, and was growing less every year. I quote from 

 his reported speech: "Where the farmers of northern Minnesota produced 

 twenty and twenty-five bushels a few years ago, they now only grow twelve. 

 The expense of raising wheat is $8 per acre. When the yield falls much 

 below twelve bushels the farmer will not receive his $1 for $1. I think it 

 is time to sound the alarm to our farmers. The history of farming in Min- 

 nesota gives this: The first year's crop is good, and will perhaps pay for 

 the farm. The second year is better, and the machinery is paid for. The 

 third year is not so good, but buildings are erected. From that time the 

 crops are poorer, and the farmer begins to run behind, and finally he 

 mortgages and loses it. If he had only stopped at the end of the fourth 

 year and changed his plans of farming, he would have been saved." 



He then warns the merchants of the danger, and says: "Tell the farm- 

 ers to change from wheat growing to something else. Drum it into them. 

 We must force them to abandon their policy of wheat growing alone." 



How long do you suppose a Minnesota farmer would go on raising wheat 

 under such depressing conditions if he could plant raisins, grapes, and figs, 

 and olives, and oranges, and apricots, and all our fruits and nuts? But I 

 must not anticipate the case of the defendant. 



