Not Enough Bread in 1959 (1909)
Sunday, June 28, 2009 at 7:21PM ;)
I never really took James J. Hill for a Malthusian, but this article in the January 28, 1909 Milford Mail (Milford, IA) certainly paints him as one. Hill's argument was basically that there would be too few farmers for a fast-growing American population.
To reflect on the progress made in the United States during the first half of the 20th century is pretty awe-inspiring. Intelligent people with opposing opinions could argue for hours whether this was despite or because of 2 world wars and the Great Depression. You can read the entire piece from the Milford Mail with Hill's predictions below.
They must learn to farm better. Intensive farming is inevitable. In very truth, two blades of grass must grow where but one grew before, and land that now produces only one bushel of wheat must produce two. And farmers must learn to handle their products more wisely after they are produced. There must be no waste either of substance or value.
Photo of James J. Hill from the Library of Congress.
1909 Jan 28 Milford Mail - Milford IA Pa Leo Future
Previously on Paleo-Future:
- Population Close to Standing Room Only (1899)
- Food of the Future (1896)
- Oil and Gas Will Eventually Be Exhausted (1909)
Reader Comments (3)
Interesting! Especially since not only does the US currently manage to produce food for its own people, we provide a lot of food for most of the rest of the world as well*. Hooray for genetic tinkering allowing us to up the production of food over less land.
*(And don't farmers still get paid subsidies to grow LESS food and not flood the market?)
Sort of (subsidies) Farmers get paid subsidies for growing certain cash crops such as wheat, cotton, and soy beans. A LOT of produce is imported these days.
Genetic tinkering has potential serious effects on food. However, the biotech folks fund campaigns and farmers don't, so the agencies in place to provide oversight are filled with company men. Its much the same as with the oil companies and pharmaceutical industry.
The thinking in that 1909 piece seemed strange to me, so I looked up what actually happened. Near as I can tell from Census data, in 1960 relative to 1910: we had the same acreage planted in wheat, about half the farm population, about half again as much total wheat production, and wheat sold for (adjusted for inflation) about 2/3 as much per bushel, feeding twice the total population. So yield per acre went up by about half, yield measured by number of farmers went up by about 200%, and wheat consumed per person dropped some (ignoring exports, for which I didn't run across data). Presumably increased yields and decreased costs, and maybe competition from other kinds of food, resulted in lower prices.