Newspaper Page Text
A RETROSPECT AND A COMPARISON.
In the presence of the campaign of edu
cation now in progress in Georgia and other
cotton states in furtherance of advanced ag
riculture; in the presence of special agents
of the national department of agriculture
charged with duty of interesting our farm
ing people in forage crops, better seed, etc.,
it occurred to the writer that it might be
well to take a retrospect of agricultural con
ditions in these cotton states at a time when
genuine prosperity smiled upon the south year
after year—making her people in the 40’s
and 50’s the happiest, the most cultured, the
wealthiest people in all the world. And,
while retrospecting, to institute a comparison
which, not intended to be in the slightest de
gree invidious, may serve to point out, in
the most striking manner, the wondrous pos
sibilities of these cotton states, agriculturally
and otherwise.
We are glad of the campaign of education
to which allusion has been made. We shall,
in our humble way, further it in every manner
possible.
We are glad that the national department
of Agriculture has become so deeply interest
ed in the south and is so solicitous to see
our broad acres brought up to the highest
productive capacity possible. We are glad
that the national department of agriculture
is, through qualified gentlemen, lending so
helpful a hand to this section of the Union.
For the encouragement of those who are
directly interested and most actively engaged
in the great work referred to, it may be well
tn show what has been accomplished and to
«et forth the degree of progress already at
tained by our people.
The special purpose of this article is to
show by statement of a few facts what these
cotton states accomplished along diversified
lines up to 1861, and what they have done
in growing corn and wheat and oats, etc.,
since 1865, particularly in 1906, compared
with 1902.
Much is being written and spoken about
the great importance of live stock on the
farm. We cordially endorse every effort at
progress along this line and, for the matter
of that, along all the lines of proposed sys
tematic reform.
Let us look for a moment into the live stock
situation as it relates to the 50’s and the
60’s. You may work out your own compar
ison; you are invited so to do.
In this article we shall deal with the eight
strictly cotton states —North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Lou
isiana, Texas and Arkansas.
In 1860 these states had live stock as fol
lows: Swines, 11,343,855; sheep, 3,153,033;
milch cows, 2,632,637; other cattle, 5,646,-
407.
In 1906 these states owned live stock as
lows: Swine, 11,343,855; sheep, 3,153,033;
milch cows, 2,032,637; other cattle, 5,646,-
730.
Between 1902 and 1905 these states in
creased their holdings in live stock as follows:
Swine, 176,000; sheep, 36,000; milch cows,
286.000; other cattle, 1,200,000.
THE JEFFERSONIAN.
It is said that the measure of a farming
people can be taken by the extent of their
live stock possessions.
Observe, if you please, how splendid and
striking is the measurement of the fathers of
the 50’s! The fathers of that glorious period
practiced rotation of crops and general di
versification.
In 1860 the states mentioned produced 80-
100 of a bale of cotton per capita. In 1902
they produced .70-100 of a bale of cotton per
capita. In 1906 they produced 86-100 of a
bale of cotton per capita.
Improved seed, improved cultural methods,
thorough preparation of the soil, higher fer
tilization are observable here as between 1902
and 1906.
In 1860 those states produced 30.2 bushels
of corn per capita. In 1902 those states pro
duced 17.2 of corn per capita. In 1906 those
states produced 30.2 bushels of corn per cap
ita.
Are not the facts just stated pertinent to
the campaign of education now in progress in
each of the cotton states'?
Those facts are full to overflowing with les
sons that fean be made of great value by those
who chance to be studiously inclined.
Let us turn our attention to the results
of 1906 compared with 1902. Thus, we may
ascertain the degree of progress made.
In 1906 we increased our corn acreage
evore that of 1902, just ten per cent, but
the crop produced was 75 per cent, larger.
We made 196,000 bushels of corn more in
1906 than in 1902.
In 1906 our acreage in wheat was 15.9 per
cent less than in 1902, but we made a crop
that was 60.4 per cent larger. In short, we
produced 11,000,000 bushels of wheat more
in 1905 than in 1902.
In 1906 we sowed to oats an acreage ten
per cent less than in 1902, but the crop har-
I
Those who will take stock in The
Jeffersonian Publishing Co. should
correspond with Rev. E. A. Keese,
Atlanta, Ga. He will furnish full
particulars.
The Shares Are $lO Each
vested was 29.7 per cent greater. We made
11,700,000 bushels more of oats in 1906 than
in 1902.
Between 1902 and 1906 there was an in
crease in the tonnage of high grade commer
cial fertilizers used equal to 70 per cent.
This fact is inseparably connected with the
increased production noted in 1906 over
1902.
Now, let us get down to the grad-grind
facts of this very interesting condition of af
fairs.
Just exactly as the per capita circulation
of money tells the true story of real prosper
ity compared with a fictitious prosperity, so
the average yield per acre of crops, writes the
farmers’ record, whether for profit or for loss.
If the circulation per capita be inadequate
—for example, $lO when it should be $50 —
there can be no such thing as prosperity
among the masses of the people. The few,
of course, may flourish, but the masses will
suffer.
So, when we come to inquire into crop pro
duction and its relationship to agricultural
progress, we must ascertain first of all the
average yield per acre.
The increase in the average yield per acre
of corn in 1906 over 1902 was 43.7 per cent.
The increase in the average yield of wheat
in 1906 over 1902 was 45.7 per cent. The in
crease in the average yield per acre in oats in
1906 over 1902 was 35.7 per cent.
The degree of success won with the three
crops—corn, wheat and oats —may be accept
ed as a fair indication as to the increase made
in forage, potato, hay and other crops.
The figures given are not estimates. They
are reliable and give promise of nobler
achievements still.
MARTIN V. CALVIN.
Experiment, Ga.
PAGE SEVEN