Part 32
What will make our farms more attractive? It seems to me that just now there are a number of things that conspire to add to the attractiveness of the farm. Invention has already added largely to the comforts and the conveniences of the farmer. I live nearly four miles from the city. The telephone enables me to send and receive telegrams; it enables me to call the physician in a moment. I know of no one thing that hung more heavily on the mother than the fact when sickness came, or accident, it took so long to secure a physician. Today, with the telephone, we cut half in two, at least, the time between the accident and the relief. We find improvements that can be carried to the farm. Water in the house, light as good in the country as in the city. The light that I use in the country is as good as I ever had in the city, and it can now be furnished in small quantities, so that even the smallest house may be supplied. We find the rural free delivery grown until now in almost every section of our land the country is supplied as well as in the city. The good roads movement is a growing movement, and will grow because the farmers (applause) will not long be content to have a “mud embargo” upon their liberty, so large a part of the year. It is not a matter of economy merely. I believe the good roads movement is a social need as well as an economic requirement. With the good road you can have the union school, the community library; you can have a place for the farmers and their wives to meet other farmers and their wives; where you can have entertainment brought to them; where more light can be put into the life, and larger opportunity for social communion be had. Electric lines are bringing the country and city nearer together. All these things are possible. All these things are coming, and with their coming I hope to see the tide turn and the farm population increase rather than decrease in proportion to the urban population.
But, my friends, I have saved for the last the suggestion that I regard as most important. I have mentioned some of these things that have contributed to the desertion of the farm, some of the things which I hope will accelerate the return to the farm. I am interested in everything that has been said by those of whose speeches I have only heard, and by others to whose speeches I have listened. I believe in all of these things, but I believe there is one thing that we cannot neglect. I am not sure but it is the most important factor in this whole discussion, the great need of the human race, less in this country than in any other, but a need here as well, is a proper conception of the dignity of labor. (Loud applause) The struggle of mankind has been to avoid work. It has been to put the drudgery of life on somebody else, and Tolstoi has well said that, as soon as we can make somebody else do the unpleasant work we do not want to do, we then look down upon them and regard them as of a different class. Lack of sympathy is the chief cause of human injustice and human misery. I repeat that what the world needs, and we as well as the rest of the world, though not so much, for we have made more progress here than anywhere else in the world, is a proper conception of the dignity of labor. (Applause) Our education is at fault if it separates the idea of intellectual progress from the idea of moral advancement. Sometimes our children are taught that they should get an education in order that they may escape from work that seems unpleasant. Education will not be a blessing to the world, but instead a curse, if it lifts man above the willingness to toil. (Applause)
THE NECESSITY OF TOIL.
The most important thought that can be put into the mind of any child is that his education is to enlarge his capacity for work, not to relieve him from the necessity of toiling. (Applause) We find in the cities young men earning small wages in a store where they can wear good clothes, keep their hands clean and do a work that is considered more respectable, when they might earn larger wages if they were willing to bear a larger share of the manual labor of the world. (Applause) Not only do they escape from manual labor, but they miss the physical development that that toil brings. We find young men upon the farms taught that, if they manifest a little brightness, if they are a little more ambitious than those about them, they should look to the law, to medicine, to journalism, to the ministry or to politics—that they must get away from the farm. I hope our conservation congresses will not overlook the fact that we shall make little progress towards making farm homes more inviting until we teach men that the farm with all its toil and drudgery gives them a position where they can be independent, and give their children an environment that contributes to stature and character. (Applause) I believe that we shall only be doing our duty to ourselves, to our fellow man, to our country and to posterity when we emphasize the fact that it is the idler, and not the man who toils, who is a disgrace to society.
Here is a place where all of us can work; here is a public opinion which we can all join in cultivating. The mother who has a daughter approaching womanhood’s estate can help when she teaches that daughter that she ought to be more willing to link her fortunes with the fortunes of a poor young man, with high aspirations, education, ambition, good health and character, than to seek an alliance with an idle degenerate who spends the money somebody else has earned. (Applause) The father can do his duty, and can help, when he teaches the son that he is more proud of him when he sees him at work, trying to become a useful factor in society, than when he is simply waiting for some money to be left him that he may squander it, and be the worse for having had it. (Applause) Every member of society everywhere can serve in this great war upon the largest enemy we have to meet. The teacher in the college has his work to do; the preacher in the pulpit—oh, what an opportunity he has to present to his congregation, Sunday after Sunday, the idea that Christ Himself made a living reality, that greatness is to be measured by the service rendered, and that happiness, as well as greatness, depends on the contribution one makes to the world. (Applause) Here is a work that is large enough for us all. Here is something that invites us, an opportunity as large as we can crave.
MAN AND SOCIETY.
I present, therefore, as the most important thing that the conservation movement can consider, the raising up of an ideal of life that will give a man a proper conception of his relation to society. Where better than on the farm can a man learn God’s law? What is the Divine law of reward? God wrote it upon the face of the earth; He proclaimed it from the clouds; He burns it into us through the rays of the sun, namely, that God has given us the material and that in proportion as man shows industry and intelligence in converting natural resources into usable wealth he can rightfully draw from the common store of the world. That is God’s law of rewards. If a man lack intelligence, God punishes him by failure. If he lack industry, God whips him into poverty by laws that are inexorable. That is the Divine plan, but we have allowed the speculative craze to take its place, and man, instead of earning his bread in the sweat of his brow, rushes into the city to get some short cut to riches, and society has given respectability to the man who goes on the Board of Trade at 10 o’clock and by betting on what the farmers raise makes more than he can make raising it, while it looks down upon the people who feed us and clothe us. (Applause)
But, my friends, I have already talked longer than I intended to when I came. (Cries of Go on! Go on!)
I am here because I am interested. I am here because I am a debtor to society. Who in all this land has been placed under greater obligations than I? Who is more bound in duty to contribute as best he can to any improvement that is possible? This is one of the great avenues of effort; one of the great reform movements. It enlarges as you consider it. I am here to testify to my interest; I am here to listen to those who speak that I may gather from their matured thought ideas that I can put into use. My part is an humble part; it is not to discuss any question at length; it is not to speak as an expert upon any branch of conservation; it is rather to come and emphasize, so far as I can, the work that others have done—to show you how large it is, to increase your interest in it, to quicken your zeal, and to have you go from here determined, as I go determined, to contribute more largely than in the past, not only to this, but to every movement that has for its object the elevation of the human race and the advancement of the civilization of the world.
I thank you. (Continued applause)
On motion of Professor Condra, duly seconded, the Congress adjourned subject to the call of the executive committee.
SUPPLEMENTARY PROCEEDINGS
LIVE STOCK FARMING AND SOIL FERTILITY.
BY F. B. MUMFORD, _Of the University of Missouri_
The agricultural industry has been and will continue to be the greatest and most fundamental industry in the economic life of the American nation. Not only does agriculture supply the means of livelihood to a larger number of people than any other calling, but because of its intimate relation to many other arts, it occupies a most important place among American industries. From reliable statistics, the materials of manufacture drawn from agriculture constitute 42 per cent of all the materials used in the manufacturing industries. Any conditions tending to decrease these necessary materials of manufacture will react unfavorably on this industry and result in hardship to great number of laborers engaged in this occupation.
The dominant place of agriculture in the commercial and economic life of the Nation is indicated by the enormous aggregate wealth invested in agricultural enterprises. In 1910, there was invested in lands, buildings and equipment used in agricultural pursuits $36,703,418,000. The value of agricultural products for the one year of 1910, according to the Secretary of Agriculture, was $8,926,000,000. A sum so large that the human mind is unable to grasp its real significance.
All this enormous wealth comes directly from the soil. Any factors which tend to diminish the productiveness of this fundamental resource are of national concern.
The fertility of the soil is not inexhaustible, it is not self-perpetuating. Soil fertility can be mined out of the soil as coal can be mined out of the earth. When the fertility of soils has decreased beyond a certain point, then the cost of cultivation becomes too great, and farming becomes unprofitable and we may have abandoned farms. This fact has been repeatedly demonstrated in the history of ancient and modern agriculture.
But it is also true that soil fertility can be so utilized that the continuous production of crops on the same land can be indefinitely and successfully accomplished. It is also a fact that the conditions of fertility are of such a nature that the natural productiveness of the average soil can be greatly improved and the total production of food crops largely increased. Improved systems of farming based on perfectly definite scientific principles are now being practiced, which are not only more profitable, but likewise maintain successfully the productiveness of the soil.
A permanent agriculture can only be established through a rational system of soil conservation. The most important factor in all agriculture is the productiveness of the acre of land. No system of farming can endure which is not profitable. Any scheme of conservation which aims to benefit succeeding generations but fails to provide for the necessities of the people now living on earth will surely fail.
Systems of farming which are recommended should then fulfill two conditions; they must maintain or improve the fertility of the land, and they must be profitable. The failures in agriculture in the past have resulted from the failure to recognize one or the other or a combination of these two causes. Either the productiveness of the soil has been exhausted by unintelligent system or the agriculture has been unprofitable. In fact, the exhaustion of soil is rather to be regarded as an economic term which means that the operations of agriculture are no longer carried on at a profit rather than that the elements of fertility have been entirely removed from a one-time fertile soil.
In considering live stock farming, then, it is only necessary to determine first whether it is and has been successful in maintaining soil fertility.
What is needed to maintain and improve the fertility of the soils? The investigations on this matter are clear. There are four things needed under existing conditions to supply directly or indirectly to agricultural lands: vegetable matter or humus, phosphorus, nitrogen and potash. Does live stock farming, as a system, provide these materials in sufficient quantity to conserve the fertility of the soil? Without going too much into detail, it is correct for us to say that in any well planned system of stock farming, the humus supply can easily be sustained; the nitrogen can be rapidly increased and the phosphorus and potash supplied either through the application of fertilizers directly or by the purchase of foods to be first fed to animals and the manure later applied to the land.
In attempting to determine whether or not live stock farming is to be considered as a system calculated to conserve soil fertility, one cannot be greatly impressed with the unanimity of opinion in favor of animal husbandry as a means of soil improvement. When soils have become exhausted and unprofitable from continuous grain growing, the almost universal advice is to change the system of farming to stock husbandry and feed out all crops on the land. Nor is this advice to be regarded as emanating from theorists whose conclusions have been drawn alone from the test tube of the chemist, but more often such advice comes from men who are trained in farm management, and have themselves demonstrated that a rational system of animal husbandry will not only maintain but improve the fertility of the average farm located in the corn belt. Live stock farming carried on for the purpose of soil improvement is not an untried experiment. Not only individual farms but whole communities have been brought up from a condition of exhaustion and unprofitableness to a condition of productiveness by animal husbandry.
Exclusive grain farming as practiced from New England westward to the Dakotas has left behind a trail of depleted soils and where carried on for too long a time ruined farms and abandoned homes have marked the way.
These same soils are today being reclaimed and profitably tilled as the result of changing from grain farming to dairy and stock farming. This change has taken place in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and is now occurring in Minnesota. The result of profitable system of live stock farming on even the poorest of soils is to be seen in Holland. On thin, sandy lands reclaimed from the sea, dairy farming has increased the value of the farming lands until now they are valued at $500 to $1,000 per acre. Holland today supports a population twelve times as dense as Illinois, and yet has an annual surplus of cheese and butter for export amounting to more than four dollars per acre.
Fifty years ago Denmark was a wheat producing country. Its soils were gradually being depleted of fertility and agricultural ruin was imminent. The system of farming was at that time radically changed to a system of live stock production, with the result that after forty years of dairy farming the agriculture of Denmark is regarded as a model of farm management, both from the standpoint of the conservation of soil fertility and profits per acre.
Farmyard manure is now and always has been the greatest resource for maintaining soil fertility on the typical Middle West farms. Dr. C. G. Hopkins says that “Farm manure always has been, and without doubt always will be, the principal material used in maintaining the fertility of the soil.”
Director Thorne of Ohio has pointed out that the increased fertility of English farms as measured in increasing wheat yields has, in his opinion, been due to the fact that the cattle, sheep, hogs and horses have increased rapidly per cultivated acre since 1865. In that year Great Britain was maintaining the equivalent of one cattle beast for each acre cultivated, while in 1900 the live stock population had increased until there was maintained on British farms the equivalent of one cattle beast for each cultivated acre.
When Great Britain maintained one cattle beast for each two acres of land cultivated in grain, the average wheat yield was twenty-eight bushels per acre. When she had increased her live stock population to the equivalent of one cattle beast to one acre of land cultivated in grain, the yield of wheat had risen to thirty-two bushels per acre.
The limits of this paper will not permit me to quote the opinions of all the leading agricultural and soil experts who have publicly expressed themselves on the important relations of animal husbandry to soil fertility. But such national authorities as Henry Wallace, President Waters, Dean Davenport, Dean Curtis, Governor Hoard and a host of others have publicly placed themselves on record as favoring live stock husbandry for conserving soil fertility on the American farm.
The production of farmyard manure in this country now represents a value greater than the total value of the corn crop. The estimated annual value of farm manure produced in America is two and one-third billion dollars. All authorities agree that more than one-third of this material is absolutely wasted by the farmers. Here is a source of fertility ten times as great as all the commercial fertilizers annually sold in the whole United States. If this manure now wasted could be intelligently applied to the corn lands of America, there would be added $800,000,000 annually to the agricultural wealth of this country.
In planning systems of live stock farming for permanent agriculture, it is necessary to apply the amount of phosphorus removed in the annual products sold, either as commercial fertilizer or by the purchase of supplementary foods. This amount will be comparatively small, and if added by the purchase of supplementary foods may be supplied at little or no additional cost, as the profits from feeding will pay for the phosphorus used.
No scheme of soil conservation can be successful unless it is profitable. If live stock farming conserves fertility, but is unprofitable, then it need not be further considered. But live stock farming is profitable, and is more profitable than any other system of permanent agriculture which has been devised.
The latest census figures show conclusively that the net income per acre is greater from stock and dairy farms than from hay and grain farms.
The average annual net income from stock and dairy farms in the United States for the ten-year period ending with the year 1899 was $11.42, while the income from hay and grain farms was only $7.72 per acre.
Not only was the average income in the United States as a whole greater from stock farms, but in some of the more strictly grain growing states the same increased profit from stock farms is shown. In Illinois the income from grain farms was $10.60 per acre; from stock farms, $12.55. In Missouri, the income from grain farms was $7.69, and from stock farms, $9.55. In Iowa the income from grain farms was $8.88, and the income from stock farms, $13.17 per acre. In other words the profits from stock farming in Illinois were 18 per cent, in Missouri 24 per cent, and in Iowa 48 per cent greater than from grain farms.
In any ten-year period of the agricultural history of this country, the net income per acre from live stock farms has been greater than from grain crops.
I think all fair minded students of farm management problems in the Middle West will agree that the most prosperous and best managed farms throughout the corn belt today are the farms where live stock is a large, if not the chief, factor of production.
The argument that live stock farming can be profitable only on cheap land is fallacious. The highest priced farming lands in the world are utilized for stock and dairy farms.
In all systems of exclusive grain farming which have been planned for the maintenance of soil fertility, it is recommended that considerable quantities of clover be plowed under and that all of the straw and stover likewise be added directly to the soil for keeping up the humus supply. While this practice unquestionably will accomplish the results intended it is true that from an economic point of view such materials are too valuable for the nutrition of animals to be thus employed. When we remember that at a very conservative estimate, the stover or stalks, leaves and stems of the corn plant contain not less than 25 per cent of the total feeding value of the entire plant, and that under systems of exclusive grain farming, all this material is so utilized that only its humus value is secured, we must conclude that if there is another method whereby this valuable feedstuff may be first converted into animal products, such a method is certainly to be recommended in a convention assembled to discuss the broad problem of conservation.
Plowing under green clover likewise is to be regarded as a practice of doubtful economic value. At the Missouri Experiment Station, for a series of two years, the average income from such clover pastured off with hogs amounted to $34.11 per acre. This was estimating the pork product at only six cents per pound. As a matter of fact during the years in which this investigation was conducted, the pork was actually worth seven cents per pound, and the actual income from the clover alone amounted to $40.00 per acre.
I submit that when an acre of clover can be so utilized through animals as to return to the farmer the equivalent of $40.00 in cash, that it is doubtful economy to use this material solely for its humus value by plowing under.
In accomplishing the above result, it was necessary to feed an average of 3,000 pounds of grain per acre with the clover. This grain at prevailing market prices was charged to the hogs at sixty cents per bushel, the market price, and the $40.00 per acre is therefore net income. The large amount of grain fed to the hogs on the clover undoubtedly returned to the soil as much phosphorus as was removed in the body of the animals, and the ultimate result of this experiment was therefore not only to secure a greater profit from the land by this method of utilization, but also to provide generously for the plant food losses incurred by the storing up of such materials in the bodies of the hogs.
On the average Middle West farm, there are now and will continue to be great quantities of stover, hay, straw, grass and other materials which are too valuable to be used solely for manurial purposes and are yet too bulky to be profitably placed on the market. All such materials can be profitably marketed through animals, and by so doing at least 50 per cent of the humus value of the materials can be retained and a considerable profit secured from feeding to animals.