THE WHEAT TRADE IN AMERICA.

Mataura Ensign, Volume 7, Issue 359, 23 May 1884, Page 5

THE WHEAT TRADE IN AMERICA.

[by the special correspondent of the australasian.] In summarising the results of my investigations upon the various branches of American agriculture, the grain trade demands first attention, on account of its important bearing upon Australian farming. In taking a general view of the American wheat crop it will be convenient, in the first place to leave California out of the question, for the conditions of that state are altogether exceptional, while its produce has but little effect upon the question under consideration. California only produces 33 million bushels of the 400 or 500 million bushels grown in the United States. The production on the Pacific Coast has not increased of late years, and is not likely to increase. The question, therefore, of prices of American wheat in the world's market will be ruled by the condition of the great central and western states, whose trade flows eastward to the Atlantic. We have therefore to consider the productions of wheat in a purely American climate, '"and upon a tract of country whose central point is, practically, Chicago, about 1000 miles from the Atlantic coast ; while this condition of things has to be compared with wheat-growing in an Australian climate, upon country adjacent to the seaports. So much for the natural conditions of the actual production of wheat. In looking further into these natural conditions it is found that soil in the two countries is equally fertile, except that the wheat lands of Australia would probably endure a longer period of exhaustive cultivation than those of America, owing totheii stronger and more clayey character. The The average wheat crop in America, which is about twelve bushels per acre, may be taken as somewhat higher than what is obtainable in Australian, owing to the rainfall being more copious. This difference however, must be, to a great extent, equalised by the frozen American winter, which bj shortening the available working period oi the year, and increasing the expense of keep> ing working stock, must add to the cost o1 cultivating the crop. In both countries there are large areas of land which require more or less clearing, and extensive tracts which are by nature ready for the plough In regard to soil, climate and productiveness therefore, there appears to be but little dif ference between America and Australia while owing to the fact of the latter being i

,t new country, with its wheat lands near th< coast, it should be in a better condition that 0 the older territory, who productive area has been shifted over 1000 miles inland, to entei .' into competition in the wheat markets of the r world. Being nearer to London is no doubt j a natural condition greatly in favor ol America ; but if we exclude artificial con--11 siderations this should be more than nullified c by the 1000 miles inter venitig between her 8 wheat-fields and her ports. The artificial conditions affecting the pro- ' duction of wheat are the price of land, the rate of labor, the system of agriculture adopted, and the means of transporting the grain to qhe perts of shipment. In regard to the value of land we must not be misled by the fact that there i 9 an immense area of country in America upon which any person can settle, obtaining a farm of 169 , acres from the state for nothing Land is valueless without a railway - and farms near railways cannot be got a for nothing. As a matter of fact wheatgrowing farms have a value, and this has to * be calculated upon. Farms, as a rule, are >•• sold for much leas than in Australia, but - taxation ia much higher. The taxes for 1 state and county purposes frequently vary from LI to LI 10s, on LIOO of assesßed|value, 1 the rate being charged upan the assessed, t and not upon the annual value. Taking the I taxes into account land is about as dear in 5 America as in Australia. Wages arej higher than in Australia, but labor is more effec--1 tive, men working harder and more methodiI cal ,} . • o that in regard to the item of labor ) the two countries are about equal. Up to this poiut it would seem that Australia is well qualified for successfully competing ! in the grain trade. Upon the farm, as far as I can see the two competitors in wheat production have iibout . equaljadvantages. Whenever the wheat loaves , the farm, however, the race is decidedly in ' favor of the American. In fact, the colonial 1 farmer's grain begins to suffer at the spout of the threshing machine, for there the bag , comes in, a matter with which the American farmer has no concern. Neither on the farm, in the railway trucks, nor in the ship's hold are bags used, the bulk system of handling grain being adopted. The grain is shot into railway trucks,carried by machinery into the ocean-going vessel. In the description which has been given of the " elevators " of Chicago, and the " floaters " of New York harbor, the marvellous economy of the bulk system of handling grain will have been recognised. Ihe Australian farmer provides bags, the bags on being carted to the railway station are unloaded and stacked up byh and. They are afterwards loaded by hand into the trucks, and taken from the trucks into the ship, or, if not shipped direct, taken through the expensive piocess of going in and out of store. Every time the sacks are touched by hand a portion of the value to the farmer is subtracted, and when it is remembered how many times the wheat is handled between . the farm and London, the wonder is that the colonial farmer has been able to reach that market at all. Had the American farmer possessed the natural advantages frequently ascribed to him, he would, with his artificial accessories, have prevented the colonial wheat-grower from ever entering the field. Elevators and floaters would have been without avail had it not been for the admirable system of American, railways. It is the railway system that has practically brought the centre of the continent to the seaboard, and made a port of Chicago. The steamships in bridging the ocean have done much less than what has been accomplished by the railways in annihilating distance on land. The steamship bridge across the Atlantic would have had little effect if railway freights between Chicago and New York had been anything like as high as they are in Australia. The railways in America are run upon commercial principles, for the sole purpose of paying dividends to the shareholders, and therefore grain is carried 1000 miles, between Chicago and New York, for an average of 6d per bushel, while state railways, made for the purpose of opening up the country in Victoria, charge more than that amount between Horsham and Melbourne. The railways will never pay in the colonies until the decidedly uncommercial system of charging high freights is abandoned, and the farmer has but little chance 4 of competing successfully in foreign 1 markets as long as such an exorbitant tax is gathered from his produce by the. Railway department. In California, where a less population than that of Victoria, scattered over a territory nearly twice as large, is provided for. by 3000 miles of railway, and where all of the lines are in the hands of a single monopoly, grain freights are only half what they are in this colony. In the grain trade it seems that the colonies are well able to compete as far as the actual cost of production is concerned, but are seriously handicapped in the matter of handling the crop after it is produced. If the bulk and elevator system cannot be adopted, owing to the long sea voyage rendering loose wheat an objectionable kind . of cargo, we could reduce the number of times the sacks have to be handled, and we could at least reduce our railway freights onehalf, to the Calif ornian standard. Comparing the special State of California with the inland portions of Australia, we find that natural conditions are slightly in favor of the Pacific Coast. The northern half _of the state is more moist and more productive than our dry regions, and the southern half is much drier ; but, upon the whole, the average wheat crop of California, taking one yea: with another, is greater than in the special wheat-producing areas of Australia, being about 15 bushels per acre. The wheat farms are generally larger in California, but in the central and western states they are smaller than in the colonies, there being 4,000,000 farms in the United States under 600 acres in extent. The header system of harvesting, hitherto adopted in California, is not so economical as the stripper system of Australia, but the combined harvester now coming into use is the cheapest system of harvesting in the.woild — leaping, threshing and cleaning the grain at one operation. The endeavor, however, now being made and which will no doubt be successful, to attach a cleaning apparatus to the Australian stripper, will probably result in the wheat grown off our dry areas being provided with , a harvester even more economical than the new Californian machine. With large farms, therefore, it is probable that the Australian wheat-grower of the dry areas could even compete with the Californian ; but as the Californian crop does not rule the market, our competition need only be with the central and western states. The fact that California does not produce so much wheat as formerly, and that the area under the crop has ceased to increase, should receive special attention. Vine culture and the cultivation of fruits of various kinds are ' increasing at a marvellous rate in a state which has a limited population and a large r area of land. It can grow wheat cheaper ; than the rest of America, but farmers find that there is something better to be done, 1 and hence the increase of orchards and vineyards. California is the only state in the union which has an Australian climate, and it is significant that vine and fruit growing are there so much attended to. If competing with the central and eastern states in wheatgrowing is not good enough for the Calif ornians, should Australians be content with it ? I It has been shown that, as far as natural conditions are concerned, America could not, | probably, produce wheat cheaper than Aust ralia. If she could it is questionable if she would. The production of meat and dairy ' produce will^l think, always offer a good field to the American farmer ; and a substan--5 tial fall in the value of wheat would divert [ increased attention in that direction, result--5 ing in a recovery of prices. The central line 3 of wheat production has been travelling " westward for the last thirty years at the ,' average rate of 13.7 miles per annum, and now reaches the centre of Illinois, to the t west of Chicago. The American farmer is E not compelled to grow wheat, for he can c turn his attention to corn, hog-feeding, * ■ cattle-feeding, dairying, and other industries. 3 With an improved railway system, and better 3 means of handling the crop, we should have 3 little cause to fear America in the wheat * trade; but in view of the movement in favor ' of wines and fruits in California, and con- " sidering the special suitableness of our ' climate for such industries, we might well

3 j consider if we cannot do better than struggli i j for a place in the wheat market of London.