By EDWARD ATKINSON.
In 1880 it happened to fall to me to make a forecast of the very
great reduction in the price of wheat in Great Britain, which
could then be predicated on the lessening cost of transportation from
Chicago to the seaboard, thence to British ports, which was then sure
to be soon followed by a large reduction in the railway charges for
bringing the wheat to Chicago from the other Western centers of
distribution. I then alleged that the time was not far off when,
even if the price of wheat in Mark Lane were reduced from the
then existing rate of fifty-two shillings per quarter to thirty-four
shillings, it would still yield as full a return to the Western farmer
as it had yielded in previous years at fifty shillings and upward.
This forecast attracted great attention, and has since been made the
subject of very much bitter controversy, especially since the fall in
prices was much more rapid than I then thought it could be, and
was carried to a much lower point than any one could have then
anticipated. It will be remarked that thirty-four shillings in Mark
Lane is at the rate of one dollar and three cents per bushel of sixty
pounds.
From time to time I have almost been forced to defend the
position then taken, notably when asked to appear before the Royal
Commission on Depression in Agriculture at one of their sessions,
where I was kept upon the stand for two full days in the effort of
the excellent English farmers and landowners to prove that the
American farmer had been ruined by the reduction in the price of
wheat, which the majority of that commission attributed to the
demonetization of silver. The whole tone of that investigation and
of a large part of the treatment of the wheat question in Great
Britain has been one of complaint and of alleged wrong to British
agriculture because the United States had succeeded in supplying
the masses of the people of the United Kingdom with cheap bread,
with sufficient profit to themselves to keep up the supply.
Now comes what may be called a cry of alarm from a scientist
of highest repute lest England may be deprived even of an adequate
supply of wheat, and lest the price should be forced to an exorbitant
point. This view of the case was stated at great length by Sir William
Crookes when assuming the presidency of the British Association
for the Advancement of Science at the recent meeting in Bristol.
This address is published in full in the Times of September 8th, the
portion devoted to the wheat question filling three out of six columns
of closely printed text; the other three are devoted to a complete review
of the existing conditions of science. I venture to give a few
extracts which will convey to the reader the aspect of the wheat
question from this essentially British point of view. Sir William
Crookes begins with a sort of apology, which the writer can fully
appreciate. He says:
"Statistics are rarely attractive to a listening audience, but they
are necessary evils, and those of this evening are unusually doleful....
I am constrained to show that our wheat-producing soil is
totally unequal to the strain put upon it. After wearying you
with a survey of the universal dearth to be expected, I hope to
point a way out of the colossal dilemma. It is the chemist who
must come to the rescue of the threatened communities. It is
through the laboratory that starvation may ultimately be turned
into plenty."
One of the singular facts which becomes quickly apparent to any
one who deals with this subject in Great Britain is the inability of
the English farmer to think about agriculture except in terms of
wheat. Now we have an example of our English scientist of the
highest repute who seems to ignore all other grain and to predict
future starvation on an expected deficiency in the supply of
wheat. Sir William Crookes proceeds:
"The consumption of wheat per head of the population (unit consumption)
is over six bushels per annum; and, taking the population
at 40,000,000, we require no less than 240,000,000 bushels
of wheat, increasing annually by 2,000,000 bushels to supply the
increase of population. Of the total amount of wheat consumed
in the United Kingdom we grow twenty-five and import seventy-five
per cent."
He then deals with the impending scarcity, saying:
"To arrest this impending danger it has been proposed that an
amount of 64,000,000 bushels of wheat should be purchased by the
state and stored in national granaries, not to be opened except to
remedy deterioration of grain, or in view of national disaster rendering
starvation imminent. This 64,000,000 bushels would add
another fourteen weeks' life to the population."
After dealing with the fact that while it might be possible for
the United Kingdom to supply itself with its own wheat at an average
of twenty-nine and a half bushels to the acre, he goes on to say
that this would require thirteen thousand square miles of British
territory, increasing at the rate of one hundred square miles per
annum; but he says it would be clearly impossible to assign so large
a proportion of the area of the United Kingdom to a single crop without
suffering in other matters, adding:
"In any case, owing to our cold, damp climate and capricious
weather, the wheat crop is hazardous, and for the present our annual
deficit of 180,000,000 bushels must be imported. A permanently
higher price for wheat is, I fear, a calamity that ere long must be
faced."
I can imagine with what a relish the Royal Commission on the
Depression of Agriculture would have received this prophecy of a
permanently higher price for wheat. Sir William Crookes goes on
to say:
"Wheat is the most sustaining food grain of the great Caucasian
race, which includes the peoples of Europe, United States, British
America, the white inhabitants of South Africa, Australasia, parts
of South America, and the white population of the European
colonies."
He then points out how rapidly the consumers of wheat have increased,
yet failing to attribute this increase in part to the rapid
reduction in the cost. He says:
"In 1871 the bread-eaters of the world numbered 371,000,000;
in 1881, 416,000,000; in 1891, 472,600,000; and at the present
time they number 516,500,000. The augmentation of the world's
bread-eating population in a geometrical ratio is evidenced by the
fact that the yearly aggregates grow progressively larger.... To
supply 516,500,000 bread-eaters, if each bread-eating unit is to have
his usual ration, will require a total of 2,324,000,000 bushels for seed
and food. According to the best authorities, the total supplies from
the 1897-'98 harvest are 1,921,000,000."
It will be observed that while the English average consumption
is said to be six bushels, the average employed in this computation
is four and a half bushels per head. He then remarks upon the
large harvests for seven years, saying:
"Bread-eaters have almost eaten up the reserves of wheat, and
the 1897 harvest being under average, the conditions become serious....
It is clear we are confronted with a colossal problem that must
tax the wits of the wisest. Up to recent years the growth of wheat
has kept pace with demands. As wheat-eaters increased, the acreage
under wheat expanded. We forget that the wheat-growing area is
of strictly limited extent, and that a few million acres regularly absorbed
soon amount to a formidable number. The present position
being so gloomy, let us consider future prospects."
He then deals successively with the United States, Russia,
Canada, and other countries. In regard to the United States he
remarks:
"Practically there remains no uncultivated prairie land in the
United States suitable for wheat-growing. The virgin land has been
rapidly absorbed, until at present there is no land left for wheat
without reducing the area for maize, hay, and other necessary crops.
It is almost certain that within a generation the ever-increasing
population of the United States will consume all the wheat
grown within its borders, and will be driven to import, and, like
ourselves, will scramble for a lion's share of the wheat crop of the
world."
It is difficult for a citizen of the United States who has given
any attention to the potential of our land to conceive of such views
being held by an Englishman of highest scientific intelligence.
When I was in England last summer I had a long interview with
the editor of one of the papers of widest influence in all Great
Britain. I then remarked that there were forces in action in the
United States in three or four different directions which would
profoundly change all the conditions of British industry, and render
the English-speaking people of the United Kingdom and the
United States more and more interdependent. It is seldom that one
finds more than an occasional half a column in any great English
paper devoted to the subject of our economic relations and to the
development either of the American iron industry, of its agriculture,
or of the cotton production and manufacture. Yet, in all these
branches of industry, profound changes of world-wide importance,
and yet of greater importance to the people of Great Britain, are
now in progress. I may venture to say that this address of Sir
William Crookes marks even a more profound ignorance of the
forces in action in this country than even I had ever comprehended.
Sir William Crookes next submits the following computation:
"The rate of consumption for seed and food by the whole world
of bread-eaters was 4.15 bushels per unit per annum for the eight
years ending 1878, and at the present time is 4.5 bushels....
Should all the wheat-growing countries add to their area to the
utmost capacity, on the most careful calculation the yield would give
us only an addition of some 100,000,000 acres, supplying at the average
world yield of 12.7 bushels to the acre, 1,270,000,000 bushels,
just enough to supply the increase of population among bread-eaters
till the year 1931. At the present time there exists a deficit in the
wheat area of thirty-one thousand square miles.... When provision
shall have been made if possible to feed 230,000,000 units
likely to be added to the bread-eating populations by 1931, by the
complete occupancy of the arable areas of the temperate zone now
partially occupied, where can be grown the additional 330,000,000
bushels of wheat required ten years later by a hungry world? If
bread fails—not only us, but all the bread-eaters of the world—what
are we to do? We are born wheat-eaters. Other races, vastly
superior to us in numbers, but differing widely in material and intellectual
progress, are eaters of Indian corn, rice, millet, and other
grains; but none of these grains have the food value, the concentrated
health-sustaining power of wheat, and it is on this account
that the accumulated experience of civilized mankind has set wheat
apart as the fit and proper food for the development of muscle and
brains."
Sir William then proceeds to deal with the salvation by chemistry.
But before taking notes from that part of his address, is it not
singular to remark this tendency of the scientist as well as of the
English farmer to think only in terms of wheat, wholly ignoring
other grains? It may be interesting to point out the exact difference
in the nutrients.
Wheat flour is analyzed in the following statement:
| Water | | 11.6 |
| Protein | 11.1 |
| Fats | 1.1 |
| Carbohydrates | 75.6 |
| Mineral matters | 0.6 |
| Total nutrients | | 88.4 |
| Potential energy in one pound: | 1,660 | calories. |
Corn or maize meal differs only as follows:
| Water | | 14.5 |
| Protein | 9.1 |
| Fats | 3.8 |
| Carbohydrates | 71.0 |
| Mineral matters | 1.6 |
| Total nutrients | | 85.5 |
| Potential energy in one pound: | 1,650 | calories. |
Oatmeal:
| Water | | 7.7 |
| Protein | 15.1 |
| Fats | 7.1 |
| Carbohydrates | 68.1 |
| Mineral matters | 2.0 |
| Total nutrients | | 92.3 |
| Potential energy in one pound: | 1,845 | calories. |
Rye flour:
| Water | | 13.1 |
| Protein | 6.7 |
| Fats | 0.8 |
| Carbohydrates | 78.7 |
| Mineral matters | 0.7 |
| Total nutrients | | 86.9 |
| Potential energy in one pound: | 1,620 | calories. |
It will be remarked that the difference between maize meal and
wheat flour consists only in a slightly larger proportion of fats and
a slightly less proportion of protein, a matter very easily balanced by
giving consideration to the other kinds of food which may be used
by the bread-eater. Again, it is hardly to be supposed that the
Scotchmen who listened to Sir William Crookes admitted in their
minds that wheat flour possessed any greater potential energy in the
development either of muscle or of mind than the oatmeal to which
they have been habituated for so many generations. I doubt if any
New England Yankee who had been brought up on the diet of corn
(maize) bread and baked beans, the latter supplying the protein
element in abundance, would admit any greater development of the
muscle or brain by exclusive dependence on wheat for the bread of
life. It is not, however, my purpose to deal with the relative food
values of wheat and other grains; it is simply to take up this extraordinary
delusion of Sir William Crookes in respect to the potential
of the wheat-producing area of this country. His theory is salvation
by chemistry, and he rightfully calls attention to the necessity for
obtaining a cheap and abundant supply of nitrogen. All the other
elements for fertilizing the soil are relatively abundant at low cost,
especially in this country. Our enormous supply of the phosphates
of lime and potash gives assurance on this matter, and our one deficiency,
or rather the one element heretofore of high cost, has been
the necessary proportion of nitrogen required to maintain an even
balance in the soil.
I am surprised that Sir William Crookes should attribute so
little importance to the recent discovery of the influence of bacteria,
which living and dying in nodules attached to the stalks of the
leguminous plants dissociate the nitrogen of the atmosphere, where
the supply is unlimited, converting it to the nutrition of the plant,
and thence to the renovation of the soil. Sir William deals only
with the renovating qualities of clover, having apparently no comprehension
of the existence of the cow-pea vine, the soya bean, the
alfalfa, and many other types of legumes by which the partially exhausted
soil, especially of the South, is now being renovated with
great rapidity at a low cost. Sir William's hopes of nitrogen seem to
be based on some method being found to save the sewage of cities,
but mainly on the conversion of the water power of Niagara and
other great falls to the generation of electricity and thence to the dissociation
of the nitrogen of the atmosphere.
The point to which I wish to direct attention and inquiry is this
alleged nearly complete taking up of the land of the United States
capable of producing wheat in paying quantities. The question
which Sir William Crookes puts is this: He says there is a deficit in
the wheat area of thirty-one thousand square miles which must be
converted to wheat-growing in order to keep up with the increasing
demand of the world to prevent wheat starvation in less than
one generation. It will be observed that the present necessities
of the world are computed by Sir William Crookes at 2,324,000,000
bushels, of which this country will supply 600,000,000 to
700,000,000 bushels from an area of land devoted to wheat of
71,000 square miles, a fraction over two per cent of the area of the
United States, omitting Alaska.
The problem may then be stated in these terms: Given a demand
of the wheat-consuming population of the world for this whole
supply of 2,324,000,000 bushels, this country could supply it at the
present average per acre by devoting two hundred and fifty thousand
square miles to this crop, or less than ten per cent of the area, omitting
Alaska. We could supply the world's present demand, but of
course such computations are purely speculative.
I venture to say that if a contract could be entered into by the
bread-eaters of the world with the farmers of the United States,
giving them an assurance of a price equal to one dollar a bushel in
London, or a fraction under thirty-three shillings per quarter of eight
bushels of sixty pounds each, which would yield to the American
farmer from sixty to eighty cents per bushel on the farm, the land
now under cultivation in wheat and not required for any other crop
or for pasture would be opened in the United States which would
be devoted to this service year by year as fast as the consumption
called for it. In fact, there are now fully one hundred thousand
square miles of land, 64,000,000 acres, fully suitable to the production
of wheat at fifteen bushels to the acre, practically unoccupied in
any branch of agriculture, which would be devoted to wheat on an
assured price of one dollar a bushel in Mark Lane, yielding 960,000,000
bushels. Or, to limit the question yet more: Sir William
Crookes states the needs of the people of the United Kingdom at the
present time to be 240,000,000 bushels, increasing at a rate of
less than two per cent per annum, of which twenty-five per cent is
derived from her own soil. If John Bull, in place of building
granaries, could offer thirty-three shillings a quarter, or one dollar
a bushel, in London as a permanent price for the next thirty
years, would not Uncle Sam accept the offer? and if Uncle Sam
should then ask for bids among the States, are there not several
single States or Territories that would take the contract each for
itself?
Having put that question, I now propose to submit an inquiry in
due form in order to sustain my own belief that we can supply the
whole present and the increasing demand of Great Britain for the
next thirty years with six bushels of wheat per head at a dollar a
bushel from land situated wholly in the Indian Territory, not yet
open to private entry, but which may soon be open when the Indian
titles have all been purchased. Or, again, I undertake to say that the
State of Texas can meet this whole demand without impairing in the
slightest degree its present products of grain, cotton, wool, and meats,
and without appropriating the use of more than a small fraction of
the area of that single State which has not yet been fenced in or subjected
to the plow to the production of wheat.
Perhaps it would be better to put a more simple proposition in
order to bring out what would be perfectly feasible. Let it be assumed
that the British public should really become so alarmed as to
be willing to put up the granaries which have been suggested for
storing fourteen weeks' consumption, or 64,000,000 bushels. That
would require a very large capital which would yield no income
on which there would be a heavy loss of interest and a considerable
risk of damage to the wheat during the period of storage. In place
of this a feasible plan would be to put up the capital which would
be required for building these granaries, invest it in consols, and
pledge it as collateral security for the fulfillment of a contract running
for thirty years for the annual purchase of 10,000,000 bushels
of wheat per month, or say 128,000,000 bushels a year, or twice the
quantity proposed to be stored.
There are several large dealers in grain and provisions in the
United States who would be ready to take this contract and to put up
a sufficient sum of capital invested in United States bonds to serve
as security for prompt delivery.
An assured supply of 128,000,000 bushels in addition to the
ordinary supply might allay the fear of scarcity and high price of
bread. It may here be observed that the low average crop per acre
of the United States has been due to the inclusion of wheat grown
on land partially exhausted by cropping or not well adapted to this
grain. The all-wheat as well as the all-cotton and all-tobacco
methods of ignorant farming or cropping year after year are now
very rapidly giving place to varied crops coupled with an increase of
product per acre. No agency has been of such service in this matter
as the Agricultural Experiment Stations, now established in almost
every State under the supervision of men of the highest capacity.
Under this system wheat, which requires a few days of machine work
in the spring and autumn, occupying very little time of the farmer
himself, is rapidly becoming the surplus or money crop of farms
otherwise maintained on the alternate products. Under such cultivation
an average crop of twenty bushels to the acre would be assured,
in many sections much more. One hundred and twenty-eight million
bushels at twenty bushels per acre would require 6,400,000
acres, or ten thousand square miles. As an alternate with other
crops in a rotation of four, this would call for only forty thousand
square miles in varied farming. In order to satisfy the anxieties of
Sir William Crookes lest land should be taken from other necessary
work, this area might be divided among several States and Territories,
say five thousand square miles among eight. Oklahoma (38,719
square miles) was opened to settlement only seven years since, and
has yet a great deal of unoccupied land. It will this year raise
13,000,000 bushels of wheat from 850 square miles devoted to the
crop. Give Oklahoma five thousand square miles, the unoccupied
Indian Territory (30,272 square miles) would take all the rest as
soon as open; but we may only assign five thousand square miles to
that area. Five thousand more might be assigned to the limestone
section of Virginia, in the valley of the Shenandoah and its tributaries;
five thousand each to Kentucky (40,400 square miles) and
Tennessee (42,050 square miles), while the great wheat-growing
States—Kansas (82,080 square miles), Nebraska (77,510 square
miles), Minnesota (83,365 square miles), and the two Dakotas
(148,445 square miles)—would compete for the contract each to
open a little patch of five thousand square miles, not yet adjacent to
railways. We should thus have exhausted the area called for without
regard to the instant competition which would come from California
(158,360 square miles), Oregon (96,030 square miles), and
Washington (69,180 square miles), and probably from Pennsylvania
(45,215 square miles) and other Eastern or Southern States. At a
dollar per bushel in London no difficulty would be found in placing
this contract even without resort to Texas (265,780 square miles),
which could take the whole on but a small portion of its area not yet
under the plow.
The only additional measure which would then be required
would be one which must come in any event—namely, the neutralization
of the ports of export and import of food in the United States
and Great Britain and in such other countries as may choose to join,
together with the neutralization of a ferry or sea way for the transportation
of the food, wherein no hostile shot should be fired and no
seizure of private property permitted on the part of any nation, the
condition of this understanding being that if any other nation ventured
to question or contest this dedication of a neutral way for the
conveyance of food to the purposes of peace, the navies of Great
Britain and of the United States would be united to force its acceptance,
and to sweep from the ocean the fleet of every state or nation
which ventured to contest this measure. That would be a suitable
measure for beginning to make a right use of navies—for the protection
of commerce and for the destruction of every fleet or vessel
which did not accept the principle that private property not contraband
of war should be exempt from seizure upon the high seas,
coupled with a declaration limiting contraband of war so that it may
never be made to include customary articles of commerce, especially
food, not now contraband.
The foregoing text was set in type and one hundred advance
proof sheets were supplied, which have been sent by the writer to
the Secretaries of Agriculture and the chiefs of the Agricultural
Experiment Stations in all the States to which we look for any considerable
product of wheat. The replies are so complete and so
numerous as to make it impossible to incorporate a full digest of
the whole case within the limits of the present article. A supplement
will be prepared for a later number of this journal, in
which this information will be tabulated. For the present purpose
I may avail myself only of a part of the data which have been
sent to me.
1. The evidence suffices to prove that there is not a State named
above which could not set apart five thousand square miles for the
cultivation of wheat in a rotation of four without trenching in the
slightest degree upon any other crop. 2. In previous essays, in which
I have dealt with the potential of the agriculture of this country, I
have very guardedly computed but one half our total area of three
million square miles (omitting Alaska) as being arable land, suitable
for the plow. The returns now in my hands would render it suitable
to increase that area to two thirds, or two million square miles subject
to cultivation. 3. The area now under the plow for the production
of our principal crops for the year 1897 is given in the table
below. If miscellaneous crops be added to these principal crops, the
cultivated land of this country does not now exceed, and in fact does
not reach, twenty per cent of the arable land, while from the cultivated
portion a progressive increase in product may be expected under
the impetus of improved methods of farming on lessening areas
in each farm.
| | Acreage. | Yield. | Product. | Price. | Value. |
| | | Per acre. | Bushels. | Cents. | |
| Maize | 80,095,051 | 23.8 | 1,902,967,933 | 26.3 | $501,072,952 |
| Wheat | 39,465,066 | 13.4 | 530,149,168 | 80.8 | 428,547,121 |
| Oats | 25,730,375 | 27.2 | 698,767,809 | 21.2 | 147,974,719 |
| Barley | 2,719,116 | 24.5 | 66,685,127 | 37.7 | 25,142,139 |
| Rye | 1,703,561 | 16.1 | 27,363,324 | 44.7 | 12,239,647 |
| Buckwheat | 717,836 | 20.9 | 14,997,451 | 42.1 | 6,319,188 |
| All grain | 150,431,005 | | 3,240,930,812 | | $1,121,295,766 |
| Hay | 42,426,770 | 1.43 | 60,664,876 | 6.62 | 401,390,728 |
| Cotton | 23,273,209 | | 8,532,705 | 6.78 | 291,811,564 |
| | 216,130,984 | | | | $1,814,498,058 |
| Maize | 125,150 | square | miles; |
| Wheat | 61,660 | " | " |
| Oats | 40,200 | " | " |
| Barley | 4,250 | " | " |
| Rye | 2,660 | " | " |
| Buckwheat | 1,120 | " | " |
| | 235,040 | " | " |
| Hay | 66,290 | " | " |
| Cotton | 36,520 | " | " |
| | 337,850 | " | " |
The area under wheat in 1897 was a fraction under forty million
acres, or a little less than sixty-two thousand square miles. The high
price secured for that crop has led to an increase in land under wheat
in 1898 to a fraction under seventy-one thousand square miles
(nine thousand square miles added), on which the largest crop ever
known has doubtless been raised, variously computed at the present
time from 620,000,000 to 700,000,000 bushels. The area
now under wheat is therefore less than four per cent of our arable
land.
In order to develop our potential in wheat it will be best to limit
our present consideration to three States only—namely, Minnesota,
North and South Dakota—from which we derive the greater part of
our spring wheat. The area of these three States is two hundred and
thirty-two thousand square miles, disregarding fractions. The land
which is deemed to be suitable for wheat growing is estimated by the
officials from whom I have derived reports at one hundred and sixty
thousand square miles. The crop of 1898 is computed at 190,000,000
bushels, a quantity sufficient to supply Great Britain with all
that she needs in addition to her domestic production. It has been
grown on an area of less than twenty thousand square miles, or upon
one eighth part of the land of these three States only; the rest of the
wheat land can be as surely and profitably devoted to the production
of wheat as that part already under that crop. The fact may be
recalled that the territory which now constitutes the two States of
North and South Dakota began to be computed separately from other
States only in 1880, when a little under 3,000,000 bushels were
credited to that territory. The minimum product of these two States
this year will be 100,000,000 bushels.
One of the authorities upon whom I rested for absolute information
is Mr. L. G. Powers, chief of the Bureau of Labor of the State
of Minnesota, in whose Annual Report for 1896 is the most exhaustive
study of the grain production of the Mississippi Valley that has
ever been made. I therefore do not hesitate to incorporate in this
article his comments upon the proof sheets sent to him:
"The probable product of wheat in a State like Minnesota, at
a fixed price, such as Mr. Atkinson mentions, can be estimated, even
approximately, only by taking account of a number of such factors
as the present actual and relative profit of the wheat farmer, and
the probable changes that will be made in the next few years in the
cost of cultivating wheat and of transporting it to London. A few of
the leading well-known facts relating to these subjects may with
profit be noted in this connection, and first a few words with reference
to the profits of wheat raising in Minnesota.
"Whatever may be true of wheat raising in Europe, or in the
Atlantic coast States of America, it can be positively asserted that
the average profit of the Minnesota wheat grower has been steadily
though irregularly increasing since the admission of this State to
the Union in 1858. This is evidenced by the relative number and
amount of farm-mortgage foreclosures in the State, as a whole, and in
its several sections at the present time and in the past. Properly to
use those foreclosures as a measure of the increasing prosperity of the
Minnesota wheat farmer, two facts should be kept in mind. In
1880, and prior to that time, the industry of wheat growing was most
fully developed in those counties which now constitute the First
Congressional District. The farmers of those counties at that time
depended for their income largely upon their wheat crops. Later
they have adopted a highly diversified system of agriculture in which
wheat is only an incidental cash crop. The exclusive cultivation of
wheat now finds its seat in the counties composing the Seventh Congressional
District. The lands of this district are situated about two
hundred miles on an average farther from the markets of Europe
than those of the First District. Notwithstanding this fact and all
changes in the selling price of wheat, and all allied changes affecting
the wheat industry of the State, the farm-mortgage foreclosures in
the Seventh District in the five years ending with December, 1897,
were relatively twenty per cent less than they were in the First District
in the five years 1880 to 1884, and were forty per cent less than
in the five years 1869 to 1873. To the extent represented by these
figures has the average cultivation of wheat as an exclusive crop become
more profitable in Minnesota than it was twenty, thirty, or
forty years ago. A much greater increase of farm prosperity has
taken place in those counties which have adopted a diversified system
of agriculture, and made wheat an incidental cash crop.
"The growing farm prosperity in Minnesota above noted finds
its highest development in the past five years, during which the selling
price of wheat in London has averaged approximately one dollar
per bushel, or the amount called for by the conditions stated by Mr.
Atkinson. This increasing farm prosperity in Minnesota, which lessens
the mortgage foreclosures of the exclusive wheat growers forty
per cent in thirty years, has been the main factor in the settlement
of Minnesota and the two Dakotas. It has caused the wheat grown
in the territory of these three States to increase from 10,000,000
bushels in 1867 to 190,000,000 bushels in 1898. With no added
profit in the business, the settlement of the vacant lands of these
States and those of Montana and of the British Northwest will move
on, and twenty-five years from now will find in the territory tributary
to Minneapolis and Duluth not less than 400,000,000 bushels of
wheat raised annually. Even then but a fraction of the possible
wheat lands of the great Northwest will be under the plow. If a
material increase should take place in the present average profits of
the Northwestern wheat grower, the imagination of man could hardly
picture the stimulus to wheat culture that would result.
"With a fixed price of one dollar per bushel in London, called
for by Mr. Atkinson's conditions, the American farmers can find increased
profit in two possible sources: decreased cost of transportation
to London, and lessening cost of wheat production in Minnesota.
A detailed analysis of the various charges that constitute the present
cost of transporting wheat from the Red River Valley of Minnesota,
the Dakotas, and of Manitoba to London gives reasonable assurance
of a reduction in the next few years of at least five and possibly seven
cents per bushel in such cost. Here is an almost certain addition, in
the next few years, of from five to seven cents a bushel to the profit
of American-grown wheat, providing only its average selling price
in London remains practically unchanged.
"A careful study of farm methods among Minnesota farmers discloses
this fact: Some wheat growers, with the best farm machinery,
and employing the best methods of agriculture, make a profit in wheat
raising of from ten to fifteen cents a bushel more than do their
less intelligent and less progressive neighbors. Now, the tendency
in the State and throughout the Northwest is to bring, by education
and a general exchange of methods, the poorer farmers up to the
level of the best. This change is rapidly taking place. It will not
require fifteen years to realize its consummation. When the methods
and facilities of the average farmer are brought up to the level of the
best of the present time, this change, with the change above noted
in transportation charges, will add to the average profit of Minnesota
farmers in growing wheat a total of not less than fifteen and
possibly of over twenty cents a bushel. Such a change would more
than double the existing net profit of the wheat grower in the Northwest.
Could it be maintained for a series of years, as is presupposed
under Mr. Atkinson's supposition of London prices, it would furnish
such an incentive to wheat growing in Minnesota and the surrounding
territory as has as yet never been experienced. A million families
of immigrants would pour into the great Northwest within the next
twenty to twenty-five years. They would take up all the existing
vacant lands of Minnesota and the Dakotas. The lands suitable for irrigation
in these States and in Montana would be set to growing wheat.
The wave of humanity anxious to raise wheat for a dollar a bushel in
London would sweep past the boundaries of the four States mentioned,
and carry the cultivation of that cereal all over Manitoba,
Assiniboia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan. In these four British provinces
and in the four American States, dollar wheat in London would
in twenty years open more acres of good land to wheat than are now
subject to the plow within their borders. Even then the beginning
only would have been made to the possibilities of wheat culture in
the British Northwest. Settlements would not have extended as far
north as St. Petersburg in Russia; neither would settlers have
trenched upon the lands with a climate as severe as that of the Russian
metropolis.
"The foregoing is a brief statement of what dollar wheat in
London would do for one section of North America in stimulating
wheat cultivation. If that statement is based upon a true conception,
as the writer believes it is, of the possibilities of the American
Northwest, it demonstrates how impossible it will be to maintain
dollar wheat in London for any great length of time in the future.
It also shows that Mr. Atkinson is wrong in not asserting a sure continuation
of that decline in wheat prices which he so fully predicted
in 1880."
Cost of Shipping Wheat per Bushel from Moorhead, an Interior Point in Minnesota, to
Liverpool.
| | On May 27, 1898. | On July 9, 1898. | On August 20, 1898. | On September 17, 1898. |
| | Cts. per bu. | Cts. per bu. | Cts. per bu. | Cts. per bu. |
| Rate, Moorhead to Duluth | 9.30 | 9.30 | 8.70 | 8.70 |
| Duluth elevator and inspection charges | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.80 |
| Lake freight, Duluth to Buffalo | 1.40 | 1.25 | 1.25 | 1.75 |
| Elevator charges and commission at Buffalo | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Canal freight, Buffalo to New York | 3.00 | 3.00 | 2.75 | 2.50 |
| Elevator charges, etc., in New York | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 2.00 |
| Ocean freight, New York to Liverpool | 8.00 | 3.50 | 4.50 | 6.00 |
| Totals | 25.50 | 20.85 | 21.00 | 22.75 |
| General average, 22.525 cents per bushel. |
It will be remarked that Mr. Powers says I am wrong in not
asserting a sure continuation of the decline in the price of wheat
which I predicted in 1880. In setting up one dollar a bushel in
London as the standard of this inquiry, I had no thought that our
farmers could be made happy for the next thirty years by any hope
of securing so high a price. In my predictions in 1880 I said that
the time was not then far off when the farmers of the Mississippi
Valley would secure as large a remuneration from their wheat at
thirty-four shillings per quarter in London as they had been gaining
from a previous average of fifty-two shillings. I might then have
fixed the lessened price at twenty-eight shillings, and at the present
time I have a greater expectation of a reduction in the price of wheat
in Mark Lane to less than twenty-eight shillings a quarter, or eighty-five
cents a bushel, than I had in 1880 that it would so soon reach
thirty-four shillings. I merely adopted a dollar a bushel as an arbitrary
standard on which an abundant supply of bread at low cost
would be absolutely assured to the people of England.
In fact, as I stated before the Royal Commission on Depression of
Agriculture, it is not probable that a reduction in the price of wheat
to forty cents a bushel on Western farms or sixty-five to seventy
cents a bushel in England would stop the growth of this grain,
although it might check an increase. When the price went
down to a very low point on the last excessive crop it is probable
that 100,000,000 bushels of wheat were fed to swine and to cattle.
It proved to make better pork and beef than maize or Indian corn,
and, as the price of meat did not decline in anything like the proportion
to the price of wheat, the farmers who thus fed their excess
secured a profit which the sale of the crude grain might not have
given.
In this comment Mr. Powers deals with the reduction in the
number of foreclosures in Minnesota. Attention should be called to
the fact that the United States census investigation for which a million
dollars was appropriated, for the purpose of recording farm mortgages
in 1890, disclosed the fact that in the ten great grain-growing
States of the middle West two thirds of the farms were then free of
any mortgage of any kind, and were well stocked; the incumbrance on
the remaining third being less than forty per cent of the computed
value of the mortgaged farms. Since that date several State investigations
have been made, leading to the conclusion that not exceeding
twenty per cent of the farms in these States are now under any incumbrance
of any kind. In the more prosperous parts of Minnesota
and other wheat sections since the substitution of intelligent and
varied agriculture for the single wheat crop, foreclosures have almost
ceased, such as do occur being attributed to special causes; while such
is the abundance of capital accumulated in this section that the rates
of interest on safe investments, which but a few years since were nearly
double those prevailing in the seaboard commercial cities, are now
about even. When certain causes lately produced a short stringency
in the money markets of the East, remittances were made from these
Western cities for investment in Eastern commercial paper.
In regard to wheat production at a fixed price in London, the
Commissioner of Agriculture and Labor of North Dakota remarks:
"Wheat at one dollar per bushel in London would net the North
Dakota farmer on the average about seventy-five cents per bushel on
the railroad track. At that price as a standard, every farmer in the
State would utilize all the land he has, and buy up more of the land
now lying idle and in the hands of speculators. It would increase
immigration so that nearly all the vacant Government land would be
taken up. We also have over one million acres of school and State
land, of which at least eighty per cent is suitable for raising wheat.
Such a price would give North Dakota a boom that never had its
equal."
A few words may be given to the report from Texas. The Secretary
of the Board of Agriculture states that "the area of arable
land of fair quality, including pasture that might be put under the
plow in this State, is two hundred thousand square miles; about one
hundred thousand square miles suitable for wheat and other grains
lying north of parallel 31°; about one hundred thousand square
miles lying south of that line adapted to cotton, sugar, fruits, and
vegetables of all kinds."
An unexpected reply comes from Idaho, as yet insignificant in
wheat production, stating that the potential of that State under the
conditions named might reach 400,000,000 bushels.
Again, from Arkansas, to which State we have looked more for
excellent cotton than for grain, "there are fifteen million acres of
good wheat land; wheat is fast becoming a cash crop, displacing cotton—the
capacity of a considerable part of the land at the beginning
being forty bushels to the acre, which, being much better than five-cent
cotton, is leading the farmers to take advantage of existing
prices."
Time has not sufficed since my questions were sent out for replies
to reach me from Oregon, Washington, and Montana, where the
potential in wheat production is probably equal to that of Minnesota,
North and South Dakota combined.
Sir William Crookes makes reference to the future necessity of
providing fertilizers, a matter to which the closest attention is now
being given by the cultivation of renovating crops. But regard must
be given to the fact that we have the most complete and adequate
supply of phosphate of lime and phosphate of potash in the vast deposits
of bone or mineral phosphates of Tennessee, Kentucky, and
Florida, while again we may look to nitrate of soda as a very inexpensive
source of nitrogen, of which the most adequate supply can be
assured at very low cost. Known methods are also being applied to
saving the enormous waste of nitrogen from our coke ovens and iron
furnaces.
I almost feel it right to apologize to Sir William Crookes for the
presentation of these facts. My function is that of the practical business
man who deals with these economic problems wholly from that
point of view, and not from the high standard of a complete mastery
of the physical sciences.
As I have stated, I happen to have dealt with this question several
times at meetings of the British Association for the Advancement of
Science, and in other ways in Great Britain as well as in this country.
I deem it of the utmost importance at the present time that the
interdependence of the English-speaking people should be brought
into view in the most conspicuous manner. In their relative production
and conditions the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland and the United States are the complement of each other.
Their mutual relation or interdependence is now being recognized,
and it can not be long before many of the legal obstructions to mutual
service will be removed. The people of this country are now passing
through a stage in their economic education closely corresponding
to that through which Great Britain passed between 1840 and 1856
under the wise leadership of Sir Robert Peel, Richard Cobden, and
William E. Gladstone. We move more quickly, not only in acts
but in ideas, than we did fifty years ago. The revolution of ideas
which has followed the revolution of institutions in the Southern
States has made the people of this country into one homogeneous
nation. A revolution of ideas in regard to the conditions of international
commerce will presently bring the English-speaking people of
the world into one homogeneous body governed by the same common
law, the same common principles of action, and the same policy
in the collection of revenue. When thus united, there can be no competition
in the commerce of the world on the part of the continental
states of Europe under their present burdens—the blood tax of
standing armies and navies and the money tax of debts that can never
be paid. There have been within a few months two witnesses to the
growing influence and power of the English-speaking people when
united for the maintenance of commerce and for the conduct of the
works of peace, order, and industry: one is the warning of the
Chancellor of the Austrian Empire, calling upon the states of middle
Europe to unite their forces in order to remain capable of maintaining
government by privilege and taxation by force of arms; the other,
the recent manifesto of the enlightened ruler of Russia, calling upon
the states of continental Europe to disarm, lest they should hereafter
be incapable of competition with the English-speaking people of
the world when they become bound together by a union of mutual
service and by community of interest which without any formal
alliance will give to them the chief control in rendering service by the
exchange of product for product to all other states and nations, to the
mutual benefit of all who are thus joined in the bonds of peace.
On my visit to Russia last year, to meet the leading economists
and statisticians of Europe, it was stated to me by well-informed men
that a plan had been considered by several continental states in
the event of war to change the present international custom by making
food products contraband of war, the purpose being to cripple
England. To such desperate conditions have some of the European
states been brought under the burden of the policy of blood and iron.
My comment upon this insane proposal was that I hoped it might
become a matter of public discussion, since nothing could so surely
and quickly bring about a commercial union of the English-speaking
people, to the end that, even if no other alliance were made, their
navies might at any moment be combined for the protection of their
commerce, and for the total cessation of any interference by war vessels
or privateers with their traffic.
The prime motive of this article is to remove from the minds of
our English friends many false impressions which I have constantly
met in my intercourse even among men who hold important positions,
of which the address of Sir William Crookes is but an extreme
expression, and to bring into common view a comprehension
of the resources of this country and of the mutual dependence of the
United Kingdom and the United States in the supply and consumption
not only of wheat, but of all the other necessaries of life.