lay was nearly at an end and they were ready to dispose of their crops, a sharp decline occurred in the price of practically all farm products, covering nearly everything the farmers had to sell. It did not materially affect the articles they had to buy, for labor and materials used in harvesting were substantially as high as earlier in the season. As a result, a situation was brought about which aroused not only the serious concern but the indignation of farmers, and which it was feared might have serious consequences to agriculture and to the nation.

The effect was especially noticeable in the cereals and cotton. The worst slump in the history of grain prices took place. The drop in the price of wheat was especially sharp. From the high-record price of early summer wheat declined to nearly half, and corn likewise. This was paralyzing to farmers as it meant the selling of their wheat for less than the cost of growing. The average cost of producing the 1919 crop of wheat for the entire United States was estimated by the Department of Agriculture to be $2.15 a bushel, and as it was not less for the crop of 1920, the average farmer stood to lose his labor and often more. It was charged in many quarters that the decline was due to manipulation, control, or other artificial causes, as well as to the importation of wheat from Canada, whose crop was 100,000,000 bushels larger than in 1919, and whose surplus was early put upon the market. This resulted in Canadian wheat underselling the United States crop from the time the movement started, and at the rate of exchange gave Canadian farmers a good price. Other factors were the world supply and demand for wheat, the partial recovery of European agriculture, and the lack of buying power and decreased consumption in European countries.

The complaint that speculators were responsible for the decline was borne out by the fact that practically all the selling in the future market represented short selling or liquidation of contracts bought from short sellers. The big corn crop and the consequent large fall in its price was another important factor affecting the price of wheat.

The extent of the change is indicated by the relative prices compared with 1919. In the spring and early summer they were from 21 to 24 per cent higher, considering all crops, than for the corresponding period in 1919, but on August 1st they were the same as a year previous, and on September 1st were 7 per cent lower than in 1919. This decline amounted to 14 per cent October 1st, and 28 per cent November 1st, so that on the latter date the prices of all crops were 33 per cent below those prevailing when the farmer planted and bore the cost of production. As a result the year's unusually heavy harvest was calculated as worth $3,000,000,000 less than the smaller crop of 1919, and $1,000,000,000 less than the still smaller crop of 1918. Live stock and its products also declined to such an extent as to cause serious losses to producers, the total value of animal products in 1920 being about $200,000,000 less than in 1919.

The serious nature of the situation was recognized not only by the farmers but by public officials and the press. The condition was regarded as alarming and was commonly spoken of as a crisis. No other industry or business could suffer a similar experience without insolvency, and it was widely estimated that one-quarter of the

farmers of the country were facing bankruptcy unless there should be an early change in the price situation. Loans were being called, farmers and stockmen could not secure needed credit, and all other efforts at relief were unsuccessful. Attempts were made by farmers through their organizations to form combines to hold their products, especially wheat and cotton, and to pledge individual farmers to hold back the sale of their products, but these were not highly effective. Bankers were appealed to through their organizations, and the Secretary of Agriculture urged that they see to it that as far as possible the farmers were properly financed, not only to protect them from unwarranted losses but also to stabilize their business and insure adequate food production in future. A conference of the governors and governors-elect from more than half the States declared the situation to be grave and urged the federal government to create a finance corporation which through loans to foreign countries would stimulate the export of American food stuffs and other products. Proposals of farmers organizations that the war finance board be revived or money loaned to exporting corporations to finance exports met with disapproval from government officials. By the time Congress convened the demand for remedial action had taken quite definite form. Hearings were immediately begun and numerous bills and resolutions introduced. The Congress passed a resolution directing the revival of the war finance corporation to assist in financing the exportation of agricultural and other products for foreign markets. The Senate also considered an amendment to the Sherman Anti-trust Law giving farmers the right of collective bargaining.

An emergency tariff measure was passed in the House near the close of the year. This related wholly to agricultural products, including crops, wool, and live stock, and was proposed to run for 10 months. It fixed import duties which it was thought would serve as a considerable protection to American products.

Meanwhile certain other measures had crystallized into action. Among these was the formation of a $100,000,000 export credit corporation, proposed at a conference of bankers, agricultural leaders, and manufacturers. This was known as the Foreign Trade Financing Corporation and was sponsored by more than 200 bankers. It was said to have a potential capacity of carrying $1,000,000,000 worth of business. The Federal International Banking Company was organized in New Orleans with a subscribed capital of $7,000,000, to assist Southern producers in marketing their surplus products by extending credit to countries desiring it for the purchase of such products. Using the 1920 situation as an illustration, the Federal Department of Agriculture urged the placing of American agriculture on a more satisfactory basis and the stabilizing of the business of farming, not in the interest of the farmer alone but of the nation as a whole. Means for carrying over the surplus from years of high production to periods of low production were suggested to that end, together with more attention to marketing and the development of the latent consumption demand in years of large supply. This would be helped by the establishment of a world market reporting service, which is now lacking.

STIMULATION OF AGRICULTURE IN ENGLAND. Great Britain has been making a pronounced

effort to retain some of the ground it gained during the war in the larger production of homegrown food and if possible to gain more in addition. The Royal Commission of Agriculture appointed in 1919 presented an interim report in which it recommended a continuance of the guaranty of minimum prices for wheat, barley, and oats grown in Great Britain, until Parliament otherwise decides, withdrawal from the arrangement being subject to not less than four years' notice. The proposed guaranties are to be calculated from year to year on the basis of the cost of producing in the preceding year.

The plans of the government for a fixed agricultural policy were embodied in the agricultural bill introduced in Parliament in the spring. These plans did not go as far as had been hoped by many friends of agriculture, and the bill met with considerable severe criticism, especially certain provisions for continued control over the cultivation of land. It is said, however, to be the most favorable measure to the industry ever introduced. The object is to give a greater sense of security to agriculture and to encourage greater enterprise in that direction. While providing for a reasonable profit through guaranteed prices it protects farmers against disastrous loss in engaging in a form of farming involving more risk than live-stock production and which with changing policy in the past has threatened ruin. The Corn Production Act of 1917 is made permanent except that guaranteed prices may be terminated on an order in council by a four years' notice. Control measures exercised through the county councils permit orders for a change in cultivation where not calculated to injure the persons interested, and landlords may be required to execute repairs necessary to secure proper cultivation. A second part of the bill relates to agricultural holdings and tenancy.

'Since the armistice the agricultural executive committees have retained all the powers given under the Defense of the Realm regulations but cultivation orders have only been served in extreme cases and attention has been devoted mainly to leveling up and improving the general standard of farming. The county councils still held in their possession about 32,000 acres which they took over during the war, part of which was farmed by them direct and the rest by tenants.

Urging the importance to the country of increased food production, Premier Lloyd George gave an energetic denunciation of the "national weakness, folly, and scandal that £500,000,000 worth of food which could be produced here should be imported." Numerous articles were published by agricultural experts on the practicability of a larger measure of arable farming as compared with grass. Sir Daniel Hall declared that "over a much greater acreage than is now devoted to the crop (wheat) the British farmer is as well placed as any other to meet that need at a profit to himself." Sir Thomas Middleton, of the British Ministry of Agriculture, points out the great opportunity for expansion in wheat growing, stating that while wheat occupies only 4 per cent of the cultivated land of the United Kingdom, wheaten bread accounts for 16 per cent of the stock of home-grown food; hence the land in wheat produces about seven times as much food per acre as that in stock farming. He shows that as a result of the plow policy England and Wales in the last year of the

war, 1918, produced 52 per cent more wheat than in the 10 years preceding the war, 41 per cent more oats, 150 per cent more rye, and 57. per cent more potatoes. The net gain in 1918 represented 1,633,000 tons of human food, to bring which into the country would have required vessels having an aggregate capacity of 2,300,000 shipping tons of 40 cubic feet. To produce the amount of bread-stuffs required by the country and at the same time maintain the present production of milk, beef, and mutton, he estimates would call for 43,000,000 to 45,000,000 acres of arable land, whereas there are less than 47,000,000 acres of cultivated land available altogether. Hence he considers that such a scale of production is clearly impossible. The former director-general of food production in Great Britain also pleads for the more favorable use of land in producing human food and suitable encouragement and insurance on the part of the government.

In an interesting article on "Agriculture During Two Great Wars" (Journal of the Ministry of Agriculture, June, 1920), Lord Ernle, former president of the Board of Agriculture, contrasts the state of agriculture in Great Britain during the Napoleonic wars with that during the recent war. He estimates that between 1917 and 1919 the British farmer by his efforts at production saved the tax payers about £25,000,000.

Under an act of Parliament early in the year the British Board of Agriculture and Fisheries succeeded to the status of a first-class department known as the Ministry of Agriculture, with enlarged powers. The act of reorganization set up councils of agriculture for England and Wales and an agricultural advisory committee for both countries. It also established agricultural committees to take over the duties of the county councils pertaining to agricultural affairs. Lord. Lee of Fareham became the new Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. The name of the official organ of the Board of Agriculture was changed to Journal of the Ministry of Agriculture. The ministry appointed a woman advisor who will advise as to women to serve on the councils of agriculture, follow the work of the women's institutes, and in general watch over the interests of women in agriculture, which were greatly enlarged by the war.

According to the British Ministry of Agriculture, the total number of cattle per 100 acres in the United Kingdom is only 25 as against 40 in Belgium, 38 in Holland, and 32 in Denmark. There are but 9 dairy cows in the United Kingdom per 100 acres, compared with 20 in Holland and Belgium, 18 in Denmark, and 15 in Sweden; while the number of pigs is 8 in the United Kingdom against 30 in Belgium, 23 in Holland, 21 in Denmark, and 26 in Germany.

AGRICULTURAL CENSUS. Preliminary returns from the 14th census were issued during the year, giving data on the population and number of farms. These show that the trend of population from the country to the city has become greatly accentuated since 1910, and that for the first time in the country's history more than half the entire population is now living in urban territory, as defined by the census bureau; that is, of the 105,683,108 persons enumerated by the 14th census in continental United States, 54,816,209 or 51.9 per cent according to preliminary tabulation are living in incorporated places of 2500 inhabitants or more, and 50,866,899 or 48.1 per cent in

rural territory. Of the latter 9.3 per cent live in towns of less than 2500, and 38.8 per cent in what may be called the country districts; whereas in 1910 the figures were 8.8 per cent and 44.8 per cent respectively.

While the total increase in population since 1910 was 14.9 per cent, there was an increase in the portion living in urban territory equivalent to 28.6 per cent and in that living in rural territory of only 3.1 per cent; that is, the increase in population was over 12,000,000 in urban and only 1,500,000 in rural territory. Furthermore, the portion living in towns of less than 2500 shows an increase of 21.5 per cent, whereas that portion living in purely country districts shows an actual decrease of 250,000.

Statistics have been published by the Department of Agriculture to show that the population of the United States is increasing more rapidly than the food supply. Before the war the population was increasing at the rate of approximately 50 per cent every 20 years and wheat production was keeping up that rate of increase until after 1910, reaching its maximum in the fiveyear period 1910-14. In that period the United States was exporting only about 150,000,000 bushels of wheat and flour equivalent. With the exception of the year 1920, corn reached its maximum production more than 10 years ago and exports have fallen off to a fraction of what they formerly were. The United States is already importing more food than it is exporting, measured in money value, in the form largely of tea, coffee, tropical fruits, nuts, and sugar. From the statistics of production it has been estimated that at present rates the United States will cease to become a food exporting nation within from 15 to 25 years.

The Secretary of Agriculture makes these facts the text for a plea that everything possible be done to make farming profitable and country life more attractive, pointing out that the history of agriculture indicates that farming is in periodic danger of losing its grip on both capital and workmen and of allowing them to slip away into city industries. He points out that the real concern over the movement of rural population to urban centres is whether those who remain in agriculture are the strong, intelligent, well seasoned families which have characterized the agricultural population in the past. In order to assure this there can be no relaxation of the present movements for a better country life, economic, social, and educational.

The number of farms in the United States in 1920 according to preliminary official figures was 6,459,988, an increase of 98,496 over 1910. During the previous decade the increase was much greater, 624,130. The census definition of a farm is a tract of three acres or more used for agricultural purposes.

As a general rule the number of farms decreased in the older agricultural States and increased in the newer ones and in some special crop regions. The increase in most of the States is accounted for by the settling up of new territory, by homesteading former public lands, by developing cut-over lands, the division of large farms and plantations, etc. The general tendency toward larger units with the increased use of machinery and the decreasing supply of labor is explained as the reason for the decrease in the number of farms in a considerable number of the Central-Western States. This is not an indi

cation of decline, as in all the States in which the number of farms has decreased agriculture has advanced.

LAND VALUES. The value of plow land has continued to increase steadily since 1916, the average per acre being 54 per cent higher in 1920 than in 1916. This increase was equivalent to 21 per cent in 1920 over 1919, which marked by far the greatest increase. There was a normal lag in the price of land in relation to crop prices.

Values in the South practically doubled in four years, and the formerly cheap lands in that section are overtaking the higher values of other States. The country-wide land boom reached its maximum in lowa where considerable land was sold at $400 an acre. The boom forced prices up to a level at which it was said to be impossible for any but the most exceptional farmers to make over 3 per cent on the capitalization. The increase in that State averaged $63 from March, 1919, to March, 1920, or 32 per cent. The current high valuation is not justified by the earning power of the land, especially at normal prices for staple farm products. These inflated prices of farm lands are in part responsible for the distress which overtook farmers in the fall of 1920, especially where the land was heavily mortgaged.

INCREASE IN PRODUCTIVE POWER PER MAN. The extent to which the productive power of the farmer has increased, and the high point it has reached as a result of machinery and better farm practice, is shown by data presented by the Department of Agriculture. In the middle of the last century corn production averaged little more than 2 bushels per farmer's work day of 10 hours, when all the work was done by hand. The average rose to 14.5 bushels half a century later when the use of the gang plow, disk harrow, corn planter, self binder, and other machinery came into common use. The hand labor devoted to producing wheat in 1830 resulted in an average of hardly more than three bushels per work day of 10 hours. As a result of improved agricultural methods and machinery one day's labor now averages a production of 60 bushels, or 20 times as much. By using machinery and improvements, the farmer is able to produce 56 bushels of oats on an average by one day's labor of 10 hours, whereas in 1830 with hand labor, his average was 6 bushels, or only one-ninth as much. Similarly, in the case of potatoes the production has been trebled in the past half century, a farmer being able under modern conditions to produce an average of 57 bushels with one day's labor.. The case is nearly the same with cotton, where hand labor is still largely employed. Eighty years ago the labor of a man for one day of 10 hours produced 45 pounds of cotton in the seed, whereas it now produces 127 pounds.

These data serve to indicate not only the increased efficiency of the farmer but the high degree which has been reached, greatly exceeding that of the farmer in any other country.

FARM TRACTORS AND TRUCKS. The development of tractor building for farming in the United States is illustrated by the fact that some 330 tractors have been placed on the market by over 200 manufacturers. A national tractor show was held in Kansas City early in 1920, at which 103 models were exhibited by 66 different makers. An outstanding feature was the increase in the number of all-purpose or small general utility tractors and motor cultivators, and