CHAPTER IX. OF THE LAW OF THE INCREASE OF PRODUCTION FROM LAND. 1. LAND differs from the other elements of production, labor, and capital, in not being susceptible of indefinite increase. Its extent is limited, and the extent of the more productive kinds of it more limited still. It is also evident that the quantity of produce capable of being raised on any given piece of land is not indefinite. This limited quantity of land and limited productiveness of it are the real limits to the increase of production. The limitation to production from the properties of the soil is not like the obstacle opposed by a wall, which stands immovable in one particular spot, and offers no hindrance to motion short of stopping it entirely. We may rather compare it to a highly elastic and extensible band, which is hardly ever so violently stretched that it could not possibly be stretched any more, yet the pressure of which is felt long before the final limit is reached, and felt more severely the nearer that limit is approached. After a certain, and not very advanced, stage in the progress of agriculture-as soon, in fact, as mankind have applied themselves to cultivation with any energy, and have brought to it any tolerable tools-from that time it is the law of production from the land, that in any given state of agricultural skill and knowledge, by increasing the labor, the produce is not increased in an equal degree; doubling the labor does not double the produce; or, to express the same thing in other words, every increase of produce is obtained by a more than proportional increase in the application of labor to the land. This general law of agricultural industry is the most important proposition in political economy. Were the law different, nearly all the phenomena of the production and distribution of wealth would be other than they are. It is not generally considered that in the United States, where in many sparsely settled parts of the country new land is constantly being brought into cultivation, an additional population under existing conditions of agricultural skill can be maintained with constantly increasing returns up to a certain point before the law of diminishing returns begins to operate. Where more laborers are necessary, and more capital wanted, to co-operate in a new country before all the land can give its maximum product, in such a stage of cultivation it can not be said that the law of diminishing returns has yet practically set in. When, for the purpose of raising an increase of produce, recourse is had to inferior land, it is evident that, so far, the produce does not increase in the same proportion with the labor. The very meaning of inferior land is land which with equal labor returns a smaller amount of produce. Land may be inferior either in fertility or in situation. The one requires a greater proportional amount of labor for growing the produce, the other for carrying it to market. If the land A yields a thousand quarters of wheat to a given outlay in wages, manure, etc., and, in order to raise another thousand, recourse must be had to the land B, which is either less fertile or more distant from the market, the two thousand quarters will cost more than twice as much labor as the original thousand, and the produce of agriculture will be increased in a less ratio than the labor employed in procuring it. Instead of cultivating the land B, it would be possible, by higher cultivation, to make the land A produce more. It might be plowed or harrowed twice instead of once, or three times instead of twice; it might be dug instead of being plowed; after plowing, it might be gone over with a hoe instead of a harrow, and the soil more completely pulverized; it might be oftener or more thoroughly weeded; the implements used might be of higher finish, or more elaborate construction; a greater quantity or more expensive kinds of manure might be applied, or, when applied, they might be more carefully mixed and incorporated with the soil. The example of market-gardens in the vicinity of great cities and towns shows how the intensive culture permits an increase of labor and capital with larger returns. These lands, by their situation, are superior lands for this particular purpose, although they might be inferior lands as regards absolute productiveness when compared with the rich wheat-lands of Dakota. New England and New Jersey farms, generally speaking, no longer attempt the culture of grains, but (when driven out of that culture by the great railway lines which have opened up the West) they have arranged themselves in a scale of adaptability for stock, grass, fruit, dairy, or vegetable farming; and have thereby given greater profits to their owners than the same land did under the old régime. Even on lands where any grain can still be grown, corn, buckwheat, barley, oats, and rye, cover the cultivated areas instead of wheat. Inferior lands, or lands at a greater distance from the market, of course yield an inferior return, and an increas ing demand can not be supplied from them unless at an augmentation of cost, and therefore of price. If the additional demand could continue to be supplied from the superior lands, by applying additional labor and capital, at no greater proportional cost than that at which they yield the quantity first demanded of them, the owners or farmers of those lands could undersell all others, and engross the whole market. Lands of a lower degree of fertility or in a more remote situation might indeed be cultivated by their proprietors, for the sake of subsistence or independence; but it never could be the interest of any one to farm them for profit. That a profit can be made from them, sufficient to attract capital to such an investment, is a proof that cultivation on the more eligible lands has reached a point beyond which any greater application of labor and capital would yield, at the best, no greater return than can be obtained at the same expense from less fertile or less favorably situated lands. "It is long," says a late traveler in the United States,' "before an English eye becomes reconciled to the lightness of the crops and the careless farming (as we should call it) which is apparent. One forgets that, where land is so plentiful and labor so dear as it is here, a totally different principle must be pursued from that which prevails in populous countries, and that the consequence will of course be a want of tidiness, as it were, and finish, about everything which requires labor." Of the two causes mentioned, the plentifulness of land seems to me the true explanation, rather than the dearness of labor; for, however dear labor may be, when food is wanted, labor will always be applied to producing it in preference to anything else. But this labor is more effective for its end by being applied to fresh soil than if it were employed in bringing the soil already occupied into higher cultivation. The Western movement of what might be called the "wheatcenter" is quite perceptible. Until recently Minnesota has been a great wheat-producing State, and vast tracts of land were there planted with that grain when the soil was first broken. The profits on the first few crops have been, enormous, but it is now said to be more desirable for wheat-growers to move onward to newer lands, and to sell the land to cultivators of a different class (of fruit and varied products), who produce for a denser population. So that (in 1884) Dakota, instead of Minnesota, has become the district of the greatest wheat production." Only when no soils remain to be broken up, but such as either from distance or inferior quality require a considerable rise of price to render their cultivation profitable, can it become advantageous to apply the high farming of Europe to any American lands; except, perhaps, in the immediate vicinity of towns, where saving in cost of carriage may compensate for great inferiority in the return from the soil itself. 1 "Letters from America," by John Robert Godley, vol. i. p. 42. See also Lyell's "Travels in America," vol. ii, p. 83.-Mill. Cf. "American Agriculture," "Princeton Review," May, 1882, by F. A. Walker. The principle which has now been stated must be received, no doubt, with certain explanations and limitations. Even after the land is so highly cultivated that the mere application of additional labor, or of an additional amount of ordinary dressing, would yield no return proportioned to the expense, it may still happen that the application of a much greater additional labor and capital to improving the soil itself, by draining or permanent manures, would be as liberally remunerated by the produce as any portion of the labor and capital already employed. It would sometimes be much more amply remunerated. This could not be, if capital always sought and found the most advantageous employment. § 2. That the produce of land increases, cæteris paribus, in a diminishing ratio to the increase in the labor employed, is, as we have said (allowing for occasional and temporary exceptions), the universal law of agricultural industry. This principle, however, has been denied. So much so, indeed, that (it is affirmed) the worst land now in cultivation produces as much food per acre, and even as much to a given amount of labor, as our ancestors contrived to extract from the richest soils in England. The law of diminishing returns is the physical fact upon which the economic doctrine of rent is based, and requires careful attention. Carey asserts, instead, that there is a law of increasing productiveness, since, as men grow in numbers and intelligence, there arises an ability to get more from the soil.' Some objectors even deny that different grades of land are cultivated, and that there is no need of taking inferior soils into cultivation. If this were true, why would not one half an acre of land be as good as a whole State? Johnston' says: "In a country and among poor settlers. . . poor land is a relative term. Land is called poor which is not suitable to a poor man, which on mere clearing and burning will not yield good first crops. Thus that which is poor land for a poor man may prove rich land to a rich man." Moreover, as is constantly the case in our country, it often happens that a railway may bring new lands into competition with old lands in a given 1 "Social Science," vol. iii, p. 19. 993 "Notes on North America," 1851, vol. ii, pp. 116, 117. |