OUR farm management investigations show that on almost every farm a portion of the area is carried at a loss and that on this account a large percentage of farms are unprofitable. After deducting a fair rate of interest on the investment and allowing that portion of the living which is furnished by the farm, including house rent, it was found that over 30 per cent of the large number of farms studied during the past year had nothing left with which to pay for the labor spent upon them. In many cases the operator paid something for the privilege of working.

We hear many uncomplimentary things said about the unprofitable dairy cow, the “boarder,” supported from the profits of the remainder of the herd, but on many farms the unprofitable cow is not the only boarder. Low-yielding acres, like boarder cows, are often fatal to successful farming. Our farm survey records show that areas of poorly drained, compact, and sour soils, or soils low in humus, greatly reduce net profits. Sometimes these records show that as much as 30 per cent of the entire farm acreage does not produce enough to pay its way.

One farm in Wisconsin, on which records were recently taken, has 40 acres of poorly drained land that in its present condition is practically worthless. Twenty-five dollars per acre spent in drainage will make this 40-acre tract the equal of any in that district, and good land is selling there at $150 per acre. A small portion of similar land on this farm has already been tile-drained and is now producing a fair profit on each acre so improved.

The successful business man always tries to weed out all profitable enterprises and to expand those that pay a profit Unprofitable acres can not always be disposed of as readily as boarder cows, but usually they can be improved until they become profit bearing. If the income from such land can not be increased it is quite possible that the labor spent upon it can be reduced until the income at least pays a little more than the cost of labor.

In buying a farm, unprofitable acres that can not easily be made profitable should ordinarily be considered as having little or no agricultural value. They may even be a burden to their owner, in which case they have a negative value.  A farmer was about to buy a quarter-section farm in the corn belt at $100 per acre. This appeared to him to be a very reasonable price for a farm in that region, until a careful analysis of the proposition called his attention to the large amount of waste land on the farm. Actual measurements and careful estimates furnished the following data:

These figures gave the farm, including buildings, a value of $80 per acre, though a part of it was worth considerably more than the average price per acre asked for the farm.  An itemized study of the farm, acre by acre, and a detailed study of fences, buildings, and other improvements, should always be made before purchasing. Such investigation often calls attention to enough unprofitable acres to stop the sale.

The size of the business often has much to do toward making the farm profitable. Farm-management records show that farms are often either too small or too large for the most successful farming. There may be too few as well as too many acres. A man may not have enough land or he may be “land poor,” thereby rendering all his acres unprofitable.

About 30 years ago a Wisconsin farmer with a large family was deep in debt. His farm consisted of 120 acres, half of which was under the plow. The remainder was woodland and expensive to clear.  For 12 years the farmer had not been quite able to meet his interest. To him the whole farm consisted of unprofitable acres. He finally decided that the farm was too small for the most efficient use of the labor available. Having an opportunity, he bought an adjoining 80 acres of cleared land, going in debt the full amount of the purchase price. From that time on the farm was prosperous, and in 10 years the entire farm was paid for and enough additional money saved to build a good house and barn. During this period there had been no great change in prices of farm products. The smaller farm had been unprofitable because the overhead expenses were too high for so small a business. In this case acres were made profitable by increasing their number.

In the early nineties a North Dakota farmer owned 3 quarter sections of land. His farm was quite heavily mortgaged and for a number of years he had not been able to pay interest in full. His family was small and for most of the work he had to depend on hired help. He concluded that under the circumstances he was working, or trying to work, too many acres. Finally, he sold a quarter section and paid his debts. Seven years later he had $5,000 in the bank. Increased prices of farm products during this period only account in part for this farmer’s increased prosperity.  In this case all the acres had been unprofitable largely because there were too many of them.

A decreased yield per acre in any State may indicate poorer methods of farming and less profitable farming.  Contrary to public opinion, however, it may, and often does, indicate exactly the reverse. In districts where commercial fertilizers are not used, statistics frequently show that as prices go up the average yield per acre goes down. Better prices for wheat have caused large areas of wheat to be grown in the drier districts of the Central West on land that can not be made to produce large yields per acre. This lowers the average yield of wheat in these States at the very time that the farmers are improving their methods in order to have more wheat to sell at the higher price. In this way increased prices often lower the average yield of farm crops over considerable areas by bringing what were formerly unprofitable acres under successful cultivation.

The extensions of agriculture into regions that formerly could not be farmed at a profit may be due to a variety of causes, among which may be mentioned higher prices, better cultural methods, more efficient machinery, and immigration due to a general increase of population. All these factors combined to push both the corn belt and the wheat belt farther and farther west, thus developing large areas of land that had previously been considered worthless. The decreased average yield of corn per acre in some of our Western States is perhaps due more to increased acreage than to depletion of soil fertility. In the following table it will be noted that for Kansas and Nebraska there seems to be a direct relation between large acreage and low yield per acre.

In this table it will be noted that average yields go down as the acreage increases, and that when the acreage becomes practically constant the yields do the same. The acreage for the 10-year period 1901-1910 is practically the same as it was for the preceding 10 years and the yield is approximately the same for both of these 10-year periods. Other causes, such as variation in seasons, greatly influence the average yield of crops, but in this table the effect of climatic conditions for any particular year is minimized by taking 10-year averages. Sometimes our farming methods are criticized on the ground that they have decreased the yields by robbing the soil, when, as a matter of fact, the decreased average yield may be due in part to the bringing of less productive land under cultivation.

The Government irrigation projects have brought under successful cultivation millions of acres of arid land by applying water to acres that formerly were unprofitable.  There are still large areas to be improved in the same way.  The drainage of the immense swamp areas is also reclaiming many acres that are not only unprofitable but that are often a menace to health and a hindrance to travel and transportation. The clearing of the cut-over districts and the improvement of methods used in dry-farming are also doing much to make unprofitable acres profitable. However, irrigation, drainage, land clearing, and dry-farming include so much that is foreign to our subject that they permit only of brief mention here.  [There is also no mention of the answer to the question: For how long? These actions may lead to crop yield for a time, but salinization of desert areas, lost estuaries, lost water-holding capacity, etc. that happen over time are not considered. -ASC]

The cut-over districts of northern Michigan, northern Wisconsin, and northern Minnesota contain more than 180,000,000 acres of undeveloped land. Some of this produces enough timber or furnishes enough pasture to pay its way, but by far the larger part of this vast area must be classed as unprofitable. Quite a percentage of the best of the undeveloped land is now owned by land speculators and some of it is held at prices that make its successful development at present financially impossible. Similar conditions prevail in many parts of the West Central and Western States. (Pl. X.)

A report on file in the Office of Farm Management tells of delayed agricultural development along a certain railroad in a Western State. For a long distance the railroad traverses a belt of level and fertile but undeveloped prairie land. Less desirable land at a distance of 8 to 10 miles back from the railroad is quite well developed and producing fair crops. At first it seems very strange that the most fertile and best located land should be the slowest to develop. Further investigation disclosed the fact that the undeveloped land was owned by speculators and held at prices that made its development practically prohibitive.  In a more limited way these conditions are found in all the new agricultural sections. Land speculators have not only greatly inflated the prices of land, but they are to-day holding a tremendous area out of production altogether. The unearned increment may eventually enrich the present owners, but to the general public these acres are all unprofitable. How to discourage excessive land speculation is a problem that is now puzzling many of the wisest men in our legislative assemblies. The solution of this problem would materially decrease one source of unprofitable acres in this country.

In the suburbs of nearly every city there is a considerable area of rich agricultural land that has been cut up into city lots and sold at prices that prevent its profitable use for agricultural purposes. Such land is held for speculation and for many years it may serve no useful purpose whatever. (Pl XI.) In fact, these vacant lots are often badly kept, unsightly, and a menace to the health of the community. It would undoubtedly have been better if this land could have been left in farms until such time as it may be needed for building purposes. The area of each lot is small, but the total area of such unprofitable land is very great.

How to prevent this misuse and waste of good agricultural land that is so well located is not an easy problem.  Vacant city lots are being used to encourage vegetable gardening in connection with boys’ and girls’ club work.  This undertaking is meeting with some success, but by far the greater part of such land can never be used in this way.

We hear much comment about the great profits that are sometimes made by holding idle land for rise in price. The cost of holding this land is usually overlooked. Taxes and a fair rate of interest on the investment take a big slice of the unearned increment, and often unimproved city property is actually held at a loss. Not infrequently the present owners and possibly the general public would have been the gainers if unused suburban lots had been left in farms. In dividing rich agricultural land into city lots the desire to get something for nothing has added materially to the total number of unprofitable acres.

To meet the growing demand for farm products we must farm more acres or make each acre produce more. Land not now in farms should be made into farms, and unimproved land now in farms should be improved, only in so far as this can be done profitably.

To what extent and at what rate we should attempt to decrease the number of unprofitable acres depends largely on the increased demand for agricultural products. The law of diminishing returns prevents the reclamation of waste and until the rising prices or cheaper methods of production make such action practicable. Frequently it pays better to spend time and money in the further improvement of acres that are now profitable rather than in the reclamation of less desirable land.

Much money and valuable time is lost each year in almost every locality in the attempt to put unprofitable acres on a paying basis. Lack of satisfactory agricultural credit forces many a deserving family to waste time in trying to get a start on acres that moneyed men pass by. Misleading advertisements and inflated magazine articles have lured many a family to give up a comfortable living in the city to drag out a miserable existence in toil and worry on worthless land.  Lack of knowledge of the business side of farming is largely responsible for loss in the management of unprofitable acres.  The problem of how to prevent a waste of money, time, and energy in the attempt to develop worthless land is worthy of careful study. At best such waste can only partially be prevented. The pity of it is that so much of this loss falls on those who can least afford to lose.

Every farmer who owns unprofitable land should make a detailed examination of his farm, acre by acre, to detect all unprofitable areas. Next, he should determine the approximate cost of making each acre pay its way. Such study will disclose what and how much is needed in the way of manure, commercial fertilizer, drainage, or other preparation, to produce satisfactory crop yields. This analytical study of each portion of the farm will sometimes call attention to many acres that can not be cultivated profitably. It is better to leave such land in permanent pasture, or even to let it lie idle, than to work it at a loss. The farm not only furnishes a home, but it is a place of business. As such, each enterprise and acre should receive individual attention, and, so far as practicable, the entire farm should be placed on a paying basis.