Jasper County Democrat, Volume 20, Number 45, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 5 September 1917 — PRACTICAL FARM CO-OPERATION [ARTICLE]

PRACTICAL FARM CO-OPERA-TION

This is admittedly an age ,of improved machinery and advanced methods in farming. No longer is it possible for the man who farms by the old methods and with the old tools of our fathers to compete with his more progressive neighbor. If he undertakes it he is sure to go down in defeat. But right at this point the advocate of advanced methods and improved machinery is met' with a staggering opposition. Thousands of small farmers tell him point blank that they can not afford the great outlay, of money necessary to stock their farms with the latest labor-saving implements! _v And it is the solemn truth. They can’t afford it. It would bankrupt them to undertake it. What, then, is the answer? One word—co-operation! Cooperation in buying and using the more expensive implements. Consider the number of days in the year you would use a wheat drill, or a disc, plow or harrow, or a binder or a mower, or any ope of a large number of implements that are absolutely essential to successful farming today. The Uni+ed States department of agricultura has figured this out, and the r esult is calculated to make one think twice—and then again. The department estimates that on the average small or medium sized farm the following implements are used annually the following number of days anti fractions thereof: Walkfag plow, 19.2; sulky plow, 14.7: •prfng-tooth harrow, 6.6; spiketooth harrow, 3.1; disc harrow.

4.2; grain drill, 4.6; land roller, 4.7; corn planter (one row), 1.9; corn planter (2 row), .8; corn cultivator (one row), 4.1; corn cultivator (two row), 5.6; mower, 3.1; hay rake, 2.6; grain binder. 3.4. 7, It will easily be seen that unless a man is so well-to-do that he could afford to have capital tied up and lying idle, the plea of the small i farmer that he can not afford the modern tools is the sober truth. Ruf • there is a remedy in . co-op-erative ownership. In fact, the plan is in operation in many sections of the country and is found to work admirably. A glance at the list will convince anyone that there is not an implement there that could not be shared between two or three farmers, and many could be made to do service for five or six—some, even, for a much larger number. What, then, is the necessity for each one burdening himself with a heavy outlay to provide all of the needed tools when the burden can just as well be distributed among a number with the same’ satisfac-

tory results? Aren’t there a number of farmers in this community who could profit by this plan? If you do not want a partnership ownership, fearing possible disputes and resultant ill feeling, let one buy a corn planter, another a drill, and so down the list. Then lend back and forth, and you get the same results. But make it co-operative, decide in advance just what tool each is to buy, and get everything that will reduce your .expense and increase your yield. Think this suggestion over, friends. One or two or three hundred dollars saved on equipment could be well invested in livestock and other crying necessities on many farms. It is safe to say that ,no other class of people in the country carry as much “dead” capital as do the farmers —the very class who can least afford it. The logical way to release this capital and put it to work is through co-operation as above outlined.