impair their militancy as trade unionists. Now that compensation for industrial accidents is being taken up by the legislative bodies of the country, there remains no need for our considering further the creation of means to provide for such relief within the limits of the industry. UNITED STATES INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION In its report of 1913 your Committee expressed its pleasure with the appointment by the Federal Government of a commission to "seek to discover the underlying causes of dissatisfaction in the industrial situation and report its conclusions thereon." It was predicated of this investigating body that, in so far as it should steer clear of doctrinaires of all kinds, its conclusions must form a body of expert opinion which would exert a most salutary influence upon the relations of capital and labor. The commission expired in August of this year. The wide publicity given its reports in the daily press makes unnecessary any description thereof in this report. In view of what your Committee affirmed of the commission, and the probable resultant good of its work, our only expression now is one of regret that so important an investigation should seem to have rendered confusion worse confounded. The multiplicity of reports, big and little, published or in process of being published, appears to have demonstrated but one fact, upon which so many citizens are in agreement, namely, the intensely partisan character of the commission's findings as a whole. This is not said in a spirit of hostile criticism, certainly not in the spirit of the criticism heard in certain reactionary quarters, namely, that no better results could have been expected from an investigating body made up, in greater part at least, of elements obviously identified with interests so diverse and long habituated each to look upon the other with suspicion. Questions requiring expert knowledge in their solution demand treatment at the hands of those most familiar with them. This was the theory, doubtless, pursued by the appointing power in this present instance. The fact that the possession of such primary qualification furnishes no guarantee of an investigator's ability to view objectively all matters coming within the scope of his duties, minimizes to no appreciable extent the importance of such qualification. The factor of safety is assumed to lie in the broadness of view developed in the given group of investigators, operating to tone down individual views and gradually to substitute for these a more complete common point of view. That the commission did not develop any such open-minded breadth of judgment is at once the measure of its failure and a source of regret to all who had expected from it so much light and inspiration. REPORT OF SECRETARY OF BARLEY COMMITTEE, UNITED The year of 1915 has been a triumph for crop improvement. The total crop of the five leading cereals is more than five and onehalf billion bushels or nearly seven hundred million bushels more than was raised last year. This is the largest yield in the history of the country. There are many factors this year which have been conducive to this grand result. Excess moisture has been both a blessing and a curse. It has brought to maturity a fine crop in many sections where good crops are seldom known. On the other hand, it has ruined thousands of acres which gave promise of record breaking yields. The European War is often quoted as the "prime factor" in the tremendous record breaking yield of wheat which is undoubtedly more than a billion bushels although much of it is mouldy, damp and unfit for the market. It is said that the three billion bushels of corn may be also attributed to war prices. But how about barley? We have raised two hundred twenty-three million bushels of barley as against one hundred ninety-five millions last year in spite of the two greatest handicaps, viz.: A very low price and a very wet year. This committee has frequently presented the fundamental fact that the brewing fraternity may have a larger and better yield of barley at any time that it will pay the price. Nineteen hundred fifteen is an anomaly, and the big crop of barley can be explained in only one way and that is, the awakening of the agricultural conscience which has come about through scientific crop improvement. In gathering our annual samples of average run of barley throughout the counties in the middle west where barley is a factor, we have learned to feel the public pulse. A letter from one of our Wisconsin correspondents explains the situation: "In acceptance of your kind suggestion, we are to-day mailing you sample of a lot of 471⁄2 pound barley. This represents perhaps, a little better than the average run. All barley is colored more or less-the bulk of it probably a little darker than sample we are sending you. What effect the rain has had upon the germination of this barley, is unknown to us, and we are very much pleased to be able to have it determined. "The crop of barley is more than in 1909 (the census year), the yield was good this year and we believe there will be a larger acreage next year, should prices be favorable. Just now the market is very low. We cannot afford to pay more than 50 cents for Barley like the sample, which is above the average; our farmers will hardly feel disposed to increase the acreage on the basis of 50 cents per bushel. It will pay them better to raise corn or oats. Wheat yields were very good this year, winter wheat running from 35 to 45 bushels per acre and spring wheat, 30 to 40 bushels and we have heard of several yields of oats, 100 or more bushels per acre." There is the problem in a nut shell. It is wonderful how this country buyer has covered the whole gamut. If we could promise 80 cents for first class barley, we could forget the scientific part of crop improvement and double the crop any year. The improvement in 1915 has been in spite of price rather than because of it. When barley ceases to be a malting barley, it has to compete with oats. Barley is more profitable than oats and while nobody could make any money on either, at the average figures given by the United States crop reporter, the figures show that it is better to grow barley than it is oats and moreover, barley has a greater food value, standing next to corn in this respect. BARLEY VS. OATS In the year 1914 the yield of barley per acre was 25.8 bushels, while that of oats was 29.7 bushels. The price per bushel August first was 45.1 cents for barley and 36.7 cents for oats. The total income per acre for barley was $11.6358 and oats was $10.9199. The difference per acre shows an income of 71 cents in favor of barley. In 1915 the yield of barley per acre was 29.4 bushels, while oats was 34.9 bushels. The price per bushel August first was 56.7 cents for barley and 45.4 cents for oats. The total income per acre for barley was $16.6698 and for oats $15.8446. The difference per acre shows an income of 82 cents in favor of barley. BARLEY VS. WHEAT You can make as much money on 60-cent barley as you can on $1.00 wheat. In order that barley may be made an attractive crop, it must compete with wheat. From the same source we make the following comparison for the years 1914 and 1915: In the year 1914 the yield of wheat per acre was 16.6 bushels, while that of barley was 25.8 bushels. The price per bushel August first of wheat was 76.5 cents while that of barley was 45.1 cents. The total income per acre for wheat was $12.6990, and barley was $11.6358. The difference per acre shows an income of $1.06 per acre in favor of wheat. 1914 barley should have sold at 49.2 cents per bushel to equal the income of wheat. In 1915 the yield of wheat was 16.3 bushels per acre and barley was 29.4 bushels. The price per bushel August first of wheat was $1.065 per bushel, while that of barley was 56.7 cents. The total income per acre for wheat was $17.3595 and barley was $16.6698. The difference per acre shows an income of 69 cents in favor of wheat. Nineteen hundred fifteen barley should have sold at 59.5 cents per bushel to equal the income of wheat. Taking a five-year average on an acre of wheat yielding 14.7 bushels and an acre of barley yielding 24.3 bushels, if wheat sold at $1 per bushel giving an income of $14.70, then barley should have sold at 60.5 cents per bushel to equal the same amount. Statistics are seldom satisfactory. The above table shows that it is more profitable to grow wheat than barley so far as the average price is concerned, but it must be remembered again that barley is in reality two different grains. One for malting purposes, bringing a price which is vastly more profitable than wheat, while the lower grades, as above stated, must compete with oats. BARLEY VS. CORN Statistics do not show barley to be more profitable than corn, but when it is considered that the work of growing a crop of corn is several times greater than that of barley, the profit from barley is, in reality, more than that from corn. Moreover, we must have a rotation. Why not use barley instead of oats? In 1914 corn yielded 25.8 bushels per acre and barley yielded the same amount. The price per bushel August first of corn was 76.8 cents while that of barley was 45.1 cents. The total income per acre for corn was $19.8144 and barley was $11.6358. The difference per acre shows an income of $8.18 per acre in favor of corn. Barley should have sold at 76.8 cents per bushel to equal the income of corn per acre. In 1915 corn yielded 26.7 bushels per acre while barley yielded 29.4 bushels. The price per bushel August first of corn was 78.9 cents and that of barley 56.7 cents. The total income per acre on the corn was $21.0663 and barley $16.6698. The difference per acre was $4.40 in favor of corn. Barley should have sold at 71.7 cents per bushel to equal the income of corn per acre. ESTABLISHMENT OF SEED CENTERS There are only about a hundred counties in the Middle West where barley is grown to an advantage and this territory being relatively so small, it would be good business to grow barley more extensively and to establish seed centers for the best variety of barley in each neighborhood. |