THE FUTURE OF AGRICULTURE
It is, as I have abundantly shown, a simple truism to say that Argentina
is one of the principal agricultural countries in the world. But how far
is the country going to advance?
In the great industrial lands of the earth the tendency of population is
away from the land. But the increase of population means a bigger demand
for food. The time is swiftly coming when the United States will have
difficulty in growing sufficient to feed her own people, and must look
elsewhere. The wheat area in Canada is immense, but its extent is now
well known. The wheat lands in the Dominion are travelling farther
north, and though a short summer with long hours of sunshine are
sufficient speedily to raise crops, there is the danger--and it is
foolish to close one's eyes to it--that a summer frost may produce a
sudden shortage in the world's wheat supply. Russia is capable of
further development in wheat growing, and there are huge possibilities
in Siberia, which, physically, is a twin country to Canada. But the
Russians are the poorest of farmers, and the agricultural progress of
the land of the Tsar is doubtful.
Then there are plains of Australia which ought to be doing much more in
food production. But it cannot be said that the native-born Australian
is really fond of life in the back blocks. Anyway, the disproportionate
size of the urban to the rural populations would indicate he is not.
Though of late years something has been done to stimulate immigration,
the result is not sufficient to meet the needs of a country like the
Commonwealth.
One reason is that Australia is so much farther off than Canada, and
there is a belief amongst the country people of Great Britain that the
prospects of success are not so immediate. Further, there is the
unfortunate but undoubted and growing idea amongst Englishmen that
Australians, as a whole, are not kindly disposed to new-comers, and that
the fresh arrival has a rough time of it before he shakes himself down
to the fresh life. I do not discuss these points. I mention their
existence as some reason why Australia is not able to play the part it
is entitled to play as a great wheat country.
Now the best wheat lands of Argentina lie within the semi-tropical or
temperate zone. I have already explained why it does not have the
attractions which British colonies can offer to the man with grit and
muscle who desires to secure independence. But it does draw to its
shores a big army of workers from Italy and Spain, without the ambition
of Britons and content to be the servants of other men. Labour is
comparatively cheap. The country is easy to reach. The drift is not to
the towns but to the agricultural districts. The range for wheat
growing is boundless. But the possibility of drought is not to be
overlooked.
The money invested in agriculture falls short of that invested in live
stock. But there are more persons directly interested in the growing of
cereals, and I am one of those who believe it counts more for the
genuine, happy prosperity of a nation that a large proportion of the
population should be attached to the soil than when greater wealth is
secured by a smaller number. In my opinion it would be better if there
were easier means for the comparatively small holder, the man with
anything from three hundred to a thousand acres, to settle. I was not
unconscious of a movement, such as there is in Australia, to break up
the big estates, but at the present it is nebulous, merely something in
the air; and though the Latins, when they act, will act swiftly, the
type of colonist and labourer who lands, though he votes Socialist when
he gets the chance, is not of the brand to take vigorous political
action to secure land. His conditions are improved in comparison within
his native country, and he is inclined for the present to be content.
There is, however, a rustling amongst the leaves. There is a feeling
amongst Argentine politicians that the peon and the colonist have little
chance of becoming owners of small farms unless they are assisted by
credit banks. Various proposals have been made; but the one now before
the Chamber of Deputies, fathered by the Minister of Agriculture,
provides for the establishment of agricultural banks and the erection
of warehouses to receive produce as a pledge against cash advances.
It is reckoned that between £8,000,000 and £9,000,000 is necessary to
set the scheme on its legs, and the idea is that the State should find
half the money and private capital provide the other half.
Further, as most of the best land is in large estates and private
ownership, there is a growing public opinion that the Government would
do well if it bought up some of these enormous _estancias_ at their
present value, cut them into small holdings, and let them on the
deferred payment system to colonists. This would require enormous
capital, State provided. But, human nature being what it is, men in one
part of the country are opposed to finding money for the benefit of
another part. They do not look upon it as a national investment which
will bring good return to the State as a whole so much as increasing the
productivity and population in particular parts. However, some progress
has been made when you get a general consensus that, unbounded though
Argentina's capabilities are, closer settlement is necessary to provide
ballast in the economic progress of the nation.
"Give us of the best; let us be up-to-date and scientific; let us have
the latest twentieth-century equipment so that Argentina may have first
place"--that is the temper of the people toward agriculture. Much has
been done, an amazing amount, to place Argentina in the front line of
agrarian education. In giving praise there is, I know, always the
danger of overdoing it. And whilst the Argentine has a good conceit of
himself, he has the quality, not always readily discernible in a new
country, of being able to see his weak points and being willing to
learn. Here is a frank statement which I cull from the _Anales de la
Sociedad Rural Argentine_: "Up to the present agriculture has hardly
been carried on in a scientific, regular, methodic, reasonable and
economic manner with the endeavour to get from the soil all the benefit
and yield it can give. The empiric methods of cultivation often employed
up to now have given profits on account of the fertility of the land,
its exuberance, which, without great expense, yields a return far larger
than the general average known in other agricultural countries."
Less than forty years ago it took Argentina all its time to grow enough
wheat to supply its own needs, though its population was only a third
what it is at present. Within the memory of many Argentina had to import
wheat. Indeed, as near as 1876 thousands of tons of flour had to be
brought into the country. It is the recollection of this, in comparison
with the conditions to-day, which proclaims better than any attempts at
fine writing the strides which have been made. Look at the jumps. In
1888 the crops covered some 6,076,500 acres, representing an increase of
4,626,500 acres in sixteen years, an addition that seven years later had
reached 6,012,000 acres. By 1895 the total was 12,088,000. Then came the
wave. By 1908 the total was 43,692,228 acres, an increase of 31,603,728
acres in thirteen years, or 261 per cent. In 1911 the area cultivated
was 54,258,772 acres, and at the time of writing it must be approaching
70,000,000 acres. That tells its own story. Yet only one-sixth of the
country suitable for cultivation has been broken by the plough. The
value of the principal products of Argentine agriculture, wheat, maize,
oats and linseed, for 1913 is estimated at something over £80,000,000.
One strong advantage Argentina has is that the crops are spread over an
extensive area. They are grown in regions so far distant from one
another that no fear is felt at any time of a total loss of the harvest.
The Republic now sends her products to countries that were her purveyors
up to a few years ago. In the production of linseed she has first place
amongst the nations. In maize she figures in the third place, coming
after North America and Austria-Hungary; but in export of maize she
comes first. In the production of wheat Argentina holds the sixth
position, coming after the United States, Russia, France, India, and
Austria-Hungary; but in export of wheat and flour she has first rank. We
in Britain have Canada so much before our eyes that we assume her
progress is unequalled. The _Anales de la Sociedad Rural Argentine_ is
responsible for some interesting comparisons directed to show that the
Argentine farmer can produce for 43s. 5d. an acre what it costs the
Canadian farmer 88s. 4d. to produce. Whilst the occupancy of land has
increased 75 per cent. in thirty years in Canada, it has increased by
284 per cent. in Argentina. Whilst Canada has 20,000,000 more acres
occupied than Argentina, the Republic is far ahead of the Dominion in
the value of her live stock.
Though the capabilities of Argentina in wheat growing have been known
for centuries, and have not recently come in the nature of a revelation
as may be said in regard to Canada, the reason the boom has been so long
delayed has been because the country was in the throes of revolution,
thereby frightening off foreign capital, and because of the lack of
transport. But revolutions can now be described as things of the past,
and for its population Argentina has the longest mileage of railways in
the world. The day is not far distant when Argentina will produce
10,000,000 tons of wheat a year. Remarkable and gratifying, from a
trader's point of view, though her increase of exports are, the figures
are not so satisfying from a national standpoint. Her increase of
population, big though it is, is by no means keeping pace with her
increase in productivity.
Notwithstanding the spread of agricultural education, I must say that
full value is not got out of the land. Much of the farming is slovenly.
This is partly due to race, but chiefly because the farmers are not
owners, but only occupiers in return for giving a proportion of the crop
to the owner. Further, if there is an unsatisfactory season the
colonists neglect the land, take their departure, and try their luck
elsewhere. The Argentines are conscious of the difficulties, and, as I
have indicated, the remedy will probably be found by the State
purchasing great estates, cutting them into small farms, and letting the
colonists become the owners on easy terms. In alluding to the
immigration in a former chapter I mentioned that a number of Italians
and Spaniards return to their own countries. The migrated Latin always
finds the old country pulling at his heart-strings--a feeling, however,
which completely disappears in succeeding generations. But the
immigrants who go to Argentina to make money rather than to settle are
inclined to be reckless concerning care for the soil. The
rough-and-ready, haphazard, careless farming is, of course,
understandable in a new and fertile country. Only the passage of years
and closer settlement, and therefore more careful culture, will tend to
put things right.
The average production of wheat in Argentina is only 11.3 bushels per
acre, which is about the same as Australia. Canada does better than
that, for Manitoba can give 13-1/2 bushels to the acre and Saskatchewan
17 bushels. In England the yield to-day is 30 bushels. Germany has the
same return, whilst Roumania has 23 bushels and France 20 bushels to the
acre. There is not the slightest doubt that with improved conditions of
cultivation Argentina can do much better than she is doing. The United
Kingdom is now purchasing over £30,000,000 worth of foodstuffs a year
from the Argentine. Indeed, the Republic supplies us with a quarter of
the food we purchase from abroad. In cereals alone we purchased in 1912
from Argentina 619,000 tons of wheat, 592,000 tons of maize, 60,000 tons
of linseed and 383,000 tons of oats.
Mr. C. P. Ogilvie, one of the most astute authorities on the development
of Argentina, and whom I had the pleasure of meeting in Buenos Aires,
has demonstrated how the growing of alfalfa is useful for resting the
land after crops of wheat, maize, etc. I have already told of the way
this sanfoin plant has the property of attaching to itself
micro-organisms which draw the nitrogen in the air and make it available
for plant food. Every colonist knows the value of alfalfa for feeding
his cattle, says Mr. Ogilvie, but it is not every colonist who knows why
this plant occupies such a high place amongst feeding stuffs. Alfalfa is
easily grown, very strong when established, and, provided its roots can
get to water, will go on growing for years. The _raison d'être_ for
growing alfalfa is the feeding of cattle and preparing them for market,
and for this purpose a league of alfalfa (6,177 acres metric
measurement) will carry on an average 3,500 head. When grown for dry
fodder it produces three or four crops per annum, and a fair yield is
from six to eight tons per acre of dry alfalfa for each year. A ton of
such hay is worth about twenty to thirty dollars, and, after deducting
expenses, there is a clear return of about fourteen dollars per acre.
The figures supplied by one large company show that on an average
cattle, when placed upon alfalfa lands, improve in value at the rate of
two dollars per head per month, so it is easy to place a value upon its
feeding properties.
[Illustration: CONVEYING ALFALFA TO A RAILWAY STATION.]
Thus, Mr. Ogilvie proceeds, we will take a camp under alfalfa capable of
carrying 10,000 head of cattle all the year round, where, as the
fattened animals are sold off, an equal number is bought to replace
them. Such a camp would bring in a clear profit of 200,000 dollars
sterling. An animal that has been kept all its life on a rough camp, and
when too old for breeding is placed for the first time on alfalfa lands,
fattens extremely quickly, and the meat is tender and in quality
compares favourably with any other beef. No business in Argentina of the
same importance has shown such good returns as cattle breeding, and
these results have been chiefly brought about by the introduction of
alfalfa, and a knowledge of the life history of alfalfa is of the
greatest importance to the cattle farmer. All cereal crops take from the
soil mineral matter and nitrogen. Therefore, after continuous cropping,
the land becomes exhausted, and generally poorer. Experience has taught
us that rotation of crops is a necessity to alleviate the strain on the
soil.... If soils were composed of nothing but pure silica sand, nothing
would ever grow; but in Nature we find that soils contain all sorts of
mineral matter, and chief among these is lime. Alfalfa thrives on land
which contains lime, and gives but poor results where this ingredient is
deficient. The explanation is simple. There is a community of interest
between the very low microscopic animal life known as bacteria and
plant life generally. In every ounce of soil there are millions of these
living germs, which have their allotted work to do, and they thrive best
in soils containing lime. If one takes up with great care a root of
alfalfa, and care is taken in exposing the root, some small nodules
attached to the fine hair-like roots are easily distinguished by the
naked eye, and these nodules are the home of a teeming microscopic
industrious population, who perform their allotted work with the silent
persistent energy so often displayed in Nature. Men of science have been
able to identify at least three classes of these bacteria, and to
ascertain the work accomplished by each. The reason for their existence
would seem to be that one class is able to convert the nitrogen in the
air into ammonia, whilst others work it into nitrate, and the third
class so manipulate it as to form a nitrate which is capable of being
used for plant food. Now, although one ton of alfalfa removes from the
soil 50 lb. of nitrogen, yet that crop leaves the soil richer in
nitrogen, because the alfalfa has encouraged the multiplication of those
factories which convert some of the thousands of tons of nitrogen
floating above the earth into substance suitable for food for plant
life. As a dry fodder for cattle, three tons of alfalfa has as much
nutrition as two tons of wheat.
The cost of growing alfalfa depends largely on the situation of the
land, and whether labour is plentiful. But, says Mr. Ogilvie, we will
imagine the intrinsic value of the undeveloped land to be £4,000, upon
which, under existing conditions, it would be possible to keep 1,000
head of animals, whereas if this same land were under alfalfa 3,000 to
3,500 animals could be fattened thereon, and the land would have
increased in value to £20,000 or £30,000. To improve the undeveloped
land it must be worked, and the plan usually adopted is to let the land
to colonists who have had experience in the class of work. Colonists
usually undertake to cultivate 500 to 600 acres. They pay to the
landlord anything from 10 per cent. to 30 per cent. of the crops,
according to distance of the land from the railway. The first crop grown
on fresh broken soil is generally maize. The second year's crop linseed,
and probably a third year's crop of wheat is grown before handing back
the land to the owner, ready to be put down in alfalfa. Sometimes the
alfalfa is sown with the colonist's last crop, the landlord finding the
alfalfa seed. After the completion of the contract the colonist moves to
another part. The owner, who has annually received a percentage of the
crops, takes back his land. Fences now will necessitate a considerable
outlay, also wells and buildings. The more of these the better, as the
land will carry a larger head of cattle, and the camp being properly
divided makes the control of the cattle easy.[C]
[C] Extracted from "Argentina from a British Point of View," by
C. P. Ogilvie (1910).
Allowing for the disadvantages--stretches of drought, pests of
locusts--I know of no new country balancing one thing with another,
where the future is so bright. Given a good year, an Argentine farmer
makes 30 per cent. on his invested capital. He thinks he is doing fairly
well if he gets 20 per cent. He grumbles if his return is only 10 per
cent. He can afford to have one bad year in three--I believe the average
works out one in five--and yet be doing very well compared with farmers
in some other parts of the world.