It's too easy for me to think that somehow, someway, life was more pleasant for the Heirloom Orchardist. He was working the seasons, working the soil, sweating and livin' off the fat of the land. Early to bed, early to rise, checking his livestock, his beehives, and always breathing the sweet smell of freshly cut hay. He was livin' life; not working a job. He was running a farm, not a business. All that his family needed came from the farm. What more could he want?!
Well, for starters, he may have wanted to live free of debt. He may have wanted to retire without a mortgage. Hmm...sound familiar? The following comes from the Illustrated Annual Register of Rural Affairs for 1861. It's a bit sobering for those of us (like me) who occasionally think the life of the Heirloom Orchardist didn't have the same financial burdens we have today:
"We know a farmer over sixty years old, who has worked hard for more than forty years. He began with a good 150 acre farm given him, but subject to an encumbrance of about one-third its value. This was a good start. He is, after a lapse of forty years, still in debt. He is temperate; had he not been, his farm would have gone long ago. He has worked hard; had he not, he must have failed. He has been economical; in its common meaning, or he never could have kept even with his creditors."
"What, then, has kept him back in the world? We have figured up, and found that he has virtually sunk three good estates, by a want of management."
"First: In wintering his cattle and sheep. He kept, generally, about 20 cattle and 100 sheep. The cattle trod about three tons of hay under foot each year, and consumed half a ton each extra by exposure to the winds, in all 13 tons, worth $91. This exposure of cattle and calves reduced their size and market value one-third-annual increase, 6 head, and average value lost, $8 each-$48. Ten per cent of his sheep and lambs were lost by want of shelter, and the clip was diminished 25 per-cent from the same cause - total loss on sheep, per annum, $50. The whole yearly loss on cattle and sheep was, therefore, $189. In forty years this annual loss, with compound interest, would amount to about $35,000. Thus one fortune has been sunk."
"Secondly: In a want of good rotation of crops. He raised wheat after wheat, oats after oats, and corn after corn, because the stubble was most easily plowed, till his land was exhausted, and full of weeds. The crops, as a whole, scarcely paid his labor. A good rotation would have safely given him one-third more, which would have been a clear gain, on an average, of at least $5 an acre, on about 50 acres, yearly - total, $250 a year. This loss repeated for 40 years, and interest, would amount to more than $50,000 ! This was the second fortune sunk."
"Third: In raising crops of weeds. Some of his pasture fields had a heavier growth of mulleins, rag-weed, johnswort and thistle, than of grass; consequently, at least half his land was wasted to grow them. On 50 acres of pasture, at least $2 each were yearly wasted, to say nothing of the loss of grain by the Canada thistle patches, in retarding growth and preventing clean harvesting, and his greatly diminished crop of corn by fox-tail and pig-weed. The annual loss from weeds was, therefore, at least $100 - the amount of which, with interest, in 40 years would be $20,000. The third fortune."
"There are several other items of bad management that might be added, but these will do at present."
"If anyone doubts these estimates, let him examine carefully the amount raised by one of our best and thriftiest farmers, and from this amount deduct what is produced by a poor manager; then calculate compound interest, adding in the yearly loss, for 40 years, (the period of active business,) and he will probably find that on 150 arable acres, not merely the $110,000 have been virtually sunk, but a much larger sum. If, however, the yearly loss should be much less, all we ask is that the reader may take that diminished amount and go carefully through the calculation, and he will doubtless perceive why some men get rich at the business and others do not."
Of course there were many Heirloom Orchardists who were more financially successful than others. Payoff of that debt was quite possible. But I like to remind myself that debt was the same burden then, as it is today. And when you are partnered with Mother Nature to help produce your income, debt is a great burden. First, 150 years ago it was costly (as now), to build new structures to house the livestock. A new building for the cattle and sheep would have added to the farmer's debt. Second, the treatment for depleted soil is not as simple as rotating the crops. (Although admittedly, this farmer should have been doing it. The benefits were well known at that time). Farmers had to spread as much manure as their animals could create. And often, the manure they had wasn't enough. Corn is a voracious feeder. There were no cheap synthetic fertilizers. Guano was expensive. Third, weed seeds are everywhere. There were no herbicides, no fancy petroleum powered tillers. All the Heirloom Orchardist had were his hoeing laborers (if he could afford them), or an ox pulling a shallow plow. Livin' off the fat of the land. Payin' that mortgage.
