Newspaper Page Text
LABOR SAVING IMPLEMENTS.
Is (here not a necessity for labor saving implements in making and
handling a cotton' crop, in order to keep abreast ( of the times and to
e „ahle us to give better pay to labor? Will not thesouth have to reduce
are:ienrich the soil and give better cultivation? C. A. S.
Sandy Cross, Ga.
a, vs. There is certainly room for the exercise of inventive skill in the
jv luction of labor saving implements for cotton culture. Excepting
t j |H otton planting machine, nothing has been invented within the last
thirty years that has met with anything like a general adoption and use.
rj’hctv have been decided improvements in the shape and atfectiveness
0 f simple tools like sweeps, scrapes, and hand hoes, and a great reduc
( in their cost; but no machine for ridgingup the soil for planting,
cultivating a row at a trip, chopping to a stand, or gathering the crop,
h ; ,s set been generally received and adopted.
Of course “ fewer acres, higher fertilizing and better cultivation,” is a
universally accepted theory but not yet an accomplished fact. Farmers
jjslen well; they are often excellent advisers; but it is often the case
th. vdo not practice what they preach to others. The farmers of
Georgia understand the principles of agriculture better than did their
fathers; hut they are so straitened by circumstances that they And it
difficult to get out of “old ruts,” and follow the leadings of their own
judgment.
average product of corn and wheat for five years.
please tell us what has been the average product of wheat and com
for the past five years?
Panola, Ga. J. F. R.
Ans. The average annual product of wheat and corn in the
United States for live years past was about as follows:
Wheat, 150,000,000 bushels.
Corn, 1,000,000,000 of bushels.
The average yield per acre of the two crops in Georgia for five years
was:
Wheat, 6.25 bushels per acre.
Corn, 10.75 bushels per acre.
LAND TOO RICH FOR COTTON !
Can you make land too rich for cotton ? I have several acres around
niy barn and stables that produce a large weed but does not boll well.
The same land, when in corn, a large stalk, but, in some cases no
ear. What is the cause? J. A. S.
Ans. Your land is probably too highly supplied with ammonia
from the constant use of stable manure. Plant a small, short jointed,
prolific variety of cotton, like the old Dickson’s select, and give more
distance. Cannot conceive of land too rich for corn. Possibly your
variety of corn is not a good one. Cease to use stable manure and apply
acid phosphate alone.
POTASH ON LIGHT SOILS.
1. Does potash benefit light lands? By careful test it seems to do
harm on mine.
2. What is the cause of the advance in the price of fertilizers?
Montezuma, Ga. A. J. C.
Ans. 1. Potash is oftener helpful on light, sandy soils than on
any other kind. Possibly your soil does not require potash, but a mod
erate application would not be at all likely to do harm.
2. It is due to the advance in the price some of the raw materials of
which the fertilizers are compounded, consequent upon the very large
demand and consumption of fertilizers last year, and in anticipation of
a like demand for the coming crop.
COTTON SEED FOR HORSES AND MULES.
Is there any mode of preparing cotton seed so that horses and mules
will eat them.? A. B. C.
Davis’ Mill, Ga.
Ans. 1 know of none. The most practicable method is to feed the
cotton seed meal mixed with chopped straw or other dry forage. It is
certainly a great waste, either to feed cotton seed whole, or use the seed
or the meal directly as a fertilizer. The meal is too valuable a food (the
oretically, at least) to be used for manure, especially in view of the fact
i that the manure resulting from feeding the meal is almost as effective
and valuable when used on a crop as the meal'itself.
COTTON CULTURE AGAIN.
/
The farmers would be glad to know the best variety of cotton, the
time to plant, and the best plan of cultivation. E. B. G.
Buck Creek, Ga.
Ans. Please refer to answer to a similar inquiry elsewhere.
SUGAR CANE SYRUP IN ROCKDALE COUNTY.
The following is the substance of a report of the result of an experi
ment in the culture of sugarcane by Hon. W. L. Peek, the same being
verified by the gentleman himself:
One acre of “ loamy, sandy bottom land ” was planted (1888) in ribbon
cane. The following is the result, showing the cost of production,
yield, etc.:
Cr.
67fi gallons syrup, 0 50 cents $ 288 00
Fifteen loads of fodder 15 00
$ 303 00
Dr.
Total cost, 14 cents per gallon (every expense) $ 80 64
Net profit on one acre $ 222 36
The above is certainly a remarkable result, especially when it is con
sidered that it is only within a few years that it has been thought possi
ble to produce cane so far north as Rockdale county. The report clc^es
as follows:
“This beats cotton raising, in fact, it beats anything but ribbon cane.
Next year Colonel Peek will plant the same acre in cotton and see what
| the difference is in the yield. This syrup is superior to the average
New Orleans syrup, and sells readily in any market at 60 cents per gal
lon, retail. '
“ The ground upon which the above was raised was a loamy, sandy
bottom land. This year the cane matured six feet. It will grow on
rich land, but is not so profitable. With such a yield as this is what is
tlu* reason the farmers of this county can’t raise a full supply for this
county? I there any reason for sending off an immense quantity of
muuey every year when we can keep it at home?”
the doctrine of chemical fertilizers.
BY PROF. GEORGE VILLE.
Translated by Miss. E. L. Howard.
[Continued from October Crop Report, Circular Iso. 109.]
does the new doctrine say ? Here it is:
If you have manure, never use it alone; complete and improxe it in
®U (- h a, way as better to meet the requirements of the plant, and thanks
b> this addition—you will certainly obtain an increase of crop without
increase of risk or expense. I say without increase of cost, because—
Ibanks to the addition of one or two chemical products you can reduce
toe amount of manure without injury to the crop. You see, gentlemen,
k if the agricultural doctrine took its point first from the artificial prod lic
it tom of plants by the aid of simple compounds, in spite of all the tradi
. linns bequeathed by the past, the moment this doctrine descending
f, '°rn the height of science enters into the practical regi< n, so far from
Proscribing the use of manure, it says to the farmer, “Do not abuse too
ron K manuring, but rectify, complete the imperfect composition of
manure,” which is a vary different thing.
But in industrial questions, it is not sufficient to formulate rules; you
mu st ko furthei and inquire if it is possible to draw economic advan-
SUPPLEMENTAL CROP REPORT OF TIIE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE OF GEORGIA FOR 1888.
tages from them. We thus come to the point which, in industry, is the
touchstone without appeal; viz., the question of mpney. Have you
ever asked yourselves, gentlemen, whence come the profits in agricul
ture, and what are its true sources? When the question is stated in
such terms, it is no longer a question of little matters of personal skill,
which in business language are called the “ tricks of the trade.”
The question I state is higher, more general; it is the scientific theory
of profit; and instead of proceeding by abstract demonstration I will
proceed by analogy and by comparison.
Suppose a mill has the use of a large capital in setting up a hundred
thousand spindles, and is furnished otherwise with the most perfect
machinery. What will happen if these hundred thousand spindles be
furnished with but half the cotton they could spin? The effective
work would be burdened with the frightful cost of fifty thousand empty
spindles revolving. Fuel, supervision, first cost of investment, paying
off, general expenses, will end in the dead loss of 50 per cent, product
from the mill. In agriculture, to produce but 18 or 20 bushels of wheat
per acre, when by an increase of manure you could get 37 to 52 bushels,
is committing the same error as with the mill in question ; for the gen
eral expenses, labor and taxes remain the same, and the crop is bur
dened with the costs which would have produced the excess of 20 bush
els of grain which were not produced.
To make still clearer the truth of this parallel between the source of
profit in agriculture and in manufacturing industries, it is only neces
sary to recall the conditions regulating agricultural production.
These conditions are three in number: Ist. Heat and light, which the
sun furnishes, and whose combined action forms one of the most salient
features of climate. 2nd. The mechanical preparation of the soil, plow
ing, harrowing, etc., to facilitate the absorption and drainage of rain
water. 3rd. The amount of fertilizer.
To make a closer comparison between agricultural and industrial
work, we may say the plant is the machine; the soil, the foundation
which supports it; the fertilizer, the first matter which it transforms;
and the sun, the hearth which animates the whole system. From this,
the justification of the three terms; sun, sqil and fertilizer. We can add
nothing or next to nothing to what we receive from the sun ; its effects
escape our control; but in the preparation of soil by machinery, and its
fertilization by fertilizers, anew horizon and an almost limitless one is
open to us. To prove this, I can show you, all things equal, as they
say at school, the profit is in proportion to the fertilizer given to the
soil.
At the time when the revered Mathew de Dombasle directed the Insti
tute at Roville, the cost of growing a bushel of wheat was $1.09, as is
shown by the account published by the eminent agriculturist.:
'Rent of land $3 60
Fivpd exnenses J General expenses 4 26
r ixcu expenses. -j \y G f cultivation 344
w Seeds 3 68 sl4 98
Variable costs l ? ranure . $5 92
\aila lc c s. Harvesting 272 $8 64
Total costs $23 62
From which must be deducted for straw 4 00
There remains sl9 62
This puts the cost at $1.09 per bushel.
Well, suppose at the time Mathew de Dombasles lived, without chang
ing tiie organization of the Institute of Roville, to the $5.60 of manure
was added $9.60 worth of chemical fertilizer per acre, what would have
been the result ? To bring the 18 bushels per acre up to 40 bushels—to
reduce the cost of growing a bushel from $1.09 cents to 69 cents.
This is too serious a matter for us to be content with simple assertions.
We need figures that each one can control as he will. I take up the
preeeeding account and introduce the new element of an increase of
fertilizer :
Fixed costs in the first account sl4 98
Variable costs —Manure 15 52
Harvesting, etc 4 80
Total costs , $35 30
From which deduct straw 7 60
$27 70
Costs $27.70 instead of $19.62; crop 40 bushels instead of 18 bushels
which brings the cost per bushel to 69 cents.
The expenses of cultivation at the Institute of Roville have no anal
ogy with yours; but what matter? The result that I wish to make clear
to you would be the same in spite of the changes which you could make
in this or that item of the amount, provided the economy of the two
accounts does not change. You see the profit increases or diminishes,
according tio the amount of fertilizer used.
The doctrine of chemical fertilizer then, asserts as an axiom, that lib
eral fertilizing is necessary always, and everywhere, either with manure
or with chemical fertilizer. Whether stock raising and handling large
amounts of manure is profitable or not depends on the profit from the
animals; but whither the amount of manure used is large or small, there
is always advantage to be gained by using chemical fertilizers as an
auxiliary. In other terms, to cultivate profitably, the soil must be
highly manured; that is, provided all the fertilizing substance be used
which the climate and local conditions will allow the vegetation to
utilize.
I also add this : That the system may be a permanently profitable one,
the soil must receive more phosphoric acid, more potash and more lime,
than the crops take from it. As to nitrogen, it is only necessary to give
the soil the half which the crops require for the air makes up the
balance.
These two rules in a measure, sum up the whole of scientific agricul
ture. Observe and apply them, no matter whether by the use of manure
or chemical fertilizer. There is here no question of dogma
but a question of fitness and cost of production. In the past, you were
under an empire which ruled you. You were forced to keep animals
and meadows, as an inflexible part of the great struggle to maintain the
equilibrium between the agents of fertility the soil gained or lost. This
process is lacking in these days. It corresponds neither to the economic
conditions of our time, nor to the wants of consumption. The price of
land is too high, the manual labor too dear, and the changes of methods
in agriculture are too great.
Besides, where will you be, with the panacea of the past, in the
regions where drouths make the growth of forages impossible? In the
regions where fruit-growing is best, where the vine occupies nine-tenths
of the soil, how will you get manure enough ?
Another point of view: We are accused of proscribing the use of
manure. In reality the use of chemical fertilizers is the surest, most
rapid and most economical method of increasing production. At Ro
ville, in the time of Mathew de Dombasles, the crop of wheat was 18
bushels per acre, and 2,200 pounds of straw. I have already said that
an increase of chemical fertilizer worth $9.60 per acre, will bring the
grain to 40 bushels; but what I did not say, but which should have
been added, is that the amount of straw is also doubled; it goes from
2,200 pounds to 4,400 pounds per acre. Now what must be done with
the excess? Sell it? Every where that it is possible, as in the neigh
borhood of large cities, I do not hesitate to advise the sale; for no
opportunity must be lost of making money. But where the straw can
not be sold there is no way of utilizing it but by turning it into manure.
As soon as chemical fertilizers are used on a farm the animals are better
fed and the litter more abundant. The manure pit has to be doubled.
Impossible to deny this for the evidence proves it.
Let us set vain objections aside and recognize the truth of this affir
mation that chemical fertilizer give you power to command vegetal
activity, as oil gives you command of motive power. This is neither a
theory nor an opinion ; it is a fact firmly established by the testimony
of practical results, until now without precedent.
As I have already said, and cannot too often repeat, this is noquestion
of theory or of doctrine, but a question of fitness and profit. Does
manure cost leis than the chemical fertilizer? Then make it. Does it
cost more—is its price over $2.40 per ton ? If so, substitute chemical fer
tilizers.
In this age of free discussion one need not have the ambition to be
believed by bis word alone. I have never sought this. The faith which
animates me is too deep To fear contradiction. In exchange for the
efforts I have made for twenty years to throw light on these grave and
difficult problems, I ask but one tiling: the renunciation of prejudice
and a faithful belief in experience.
Although the season may In? a little advanced, consent, gentlemen, to
make two parallel experiments, one for wheat, and the other for rye. On
two parcels of 60 feet square each, selected in the middle of the poorest
piece of wheat, broadcast, in the first, 14 po indsof sulphate of ammonia,
previously mixed with an equal quantity of fine dry earth. On the
second parcel spread 53 pounds of complete fertilizer No. 1. Make the same
experiment for rye, on two parallel pmrcels of 60 feet square each. On
the first spread 14 pounds of sulphate of ammonia, and on the second 40
pounds of complete fertilizer No. 1, taking care to mix first with equal
quantity of fine dry earth to make sure it is easily and regularly spread.
If you consent, gentlemen, to listen to my request, as I have listened to
yours, you will see how the situation will change, since it is you who
will give strong guarantees of the truth of my assertion.
Before seperating. gentlemen, look back a moment and make a sum
mary in a few quick and exact propositions the most sciliant results of
this meeting.
Four principal sources share in vegetal life and contribute to the pro
duction of crops: air, rain, soil and fertilizer. Each one of these sources
has its part marked out before hand; and the art of producing economi
cally is, to give the fertilizer the part that is due to it, and never mis
understand this. Contrary to the past belief, that to keep up the fertility
of the soil you must give it back, pound for pound, what the integral of
all the substances contained in the crop; it is only necessary to give it a
little more phosphoric acid, potash and lime, and only the half ol tb.e
nitrogen, and its native fertility will not be diminished; on the contrary
it will be increased, day by day.
The fertilizer is not, and ought not to be, in the work of agriculture,
merely a valuable addition used to complete what the plants find always
in abundance in air and soil.
One point not less essential, is the necessity of varying the composi
tion of the fertilizer to suit the needs of each plant. From this point of
view, farm manure is inferior to the most inferior fertilizer; and great
advantage is always received by completing it by the addition of chemi
cal fertilizers.
We again say, manure always heavily by the permanent use of other
fertilizer than you grow on the farm. Make use of rotation, as much as
you can, for this allows you to speculate as you wish, either in the pro
duction of meat, or sale of forages. In other words, instead of being
ruled and enslaven by inflexible formula?, use and enjoy the liberty of
action gained by other methods. Faithful to these teachings, besides
feeling the satisfaction of being master of your labor, you will see your
business prosper, your profits increase, and—by extension of your own
success—your country itself more prosperous and prepared to go safely
and calmly through the formidable crisis which all the rest of Europe
seem, alas! eondemed to suiter.
GEORGIA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT
STATION.
The Commissioner congratulates the farmers of Georgia, on the pas
sage, at the recent session of the General Assembly, of an Act to establish
an Agricultural Experiment Station for the investigation of questions of
practical and vital importance to Agriculture. For the information of
the people the Act in full is herein published. The Board of Directors
provided for in the Act, are also given, and they will meet at the office
of the Commissioner, in Atlanta, on February 4, for the purpwse of
organizing the Board, and to initiate steps looking to the organization,
location and equipment of the Station and the Experimental Farm.
An Act to establish in this State an Experimental Station and an
Experimental Farm, to be known as the Georgia Experiment
Station, to provide for a Board of Directors for the location and
management of the same, to apply the annual donation made
by the Federal Congress in the Acts approved March 2, 1887,
and July 18, 1888 (providing for the establishment in the several
States of Agricultural Experiment Station), of fifteen thousand
dollars to the support and maintenance of the same, to appro
priate a sum of money to carry this Act into effect, and for
other purposes.
Section I. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Georgia , and
it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same , That there shall be
established in this State an Experiment Station and an Experi
mental Farm, to be known as the Georgia Experiment Station.
Sec. 11. Be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid , That
within thirty days after the passage of this Act the Governor shall
appoint a Board of Directors, who shall be charged with the con
trol and general management of the said Georgia Experiment Sta
tion. The Governor shall select one member of this Board from
each Congressional District, and the selection shall be made from
the practical and successful farmers of said district:, respectively:
The Commissioner of Agriculture, for the time being, shall be ex
officio the President, the Chancellor of the University of Georgia,
for the time being (if for any cause there be no Chancellor, then
the acting chairman of the University Faculty), and a member of
the Faculty of the State College of Agriculture and Mechanic
Arts, annually to be designated by the Governor, shall b z ex-officio
members of said Board of Directors. Thirty days from the date
of their appointment the members of said Board shall meet at the
Capital, on the call of the Governor, and shall proceed to organize
by electing one of their number as Secretary.
Thereupon, they shall draw for their respective terms of office,,
namely: Two for a term of one year; two for two years; two for
three years; two for four years, and two for five years. Annually
thereafter the Governor shall appoint two members for a term of
five years.
Sec. 111. Be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid , That at its
meeting, said Board of Directors shall give sixty days’ notice, in first
not less than three newspapers of this State, that said Board will
receive bids or proposals from counties, communities, or persons,
to donate lands and buildings, or lands, or money for the purpose
of inducing the establishing, at a given point, of said Georgia Ex
periment Station. In selecting a site for said station, the Board
shall have reference to the central portion of the State, and the
accessibility of the place offered, the healthfulness of the locality,
and the adaptability of the land to represent the variety of soils in
this State. The said Board shall dispose of all questions involved
in the proposals that may be made, as their judgment may dictate
to be for the best interests of the State. The Board’s choice of a
site shall be communicated to the Governor; and the necessary
papers shall be executed and duly recorded and filed in the office
of the Secretary of State. The property which may come into
the possession of the said Board, under the terms of this Section
shall be the property of the State of Georgia.
Sec. IV. Beit further enacted by the authority aforesaid , That
said Board of Directors shall be, and the same is hereby consti*
tuted a body corporate, with continued succession of members,
with power to purchase property for the purposes of this Act,
receive property by bequest or donation, sell the products of said
Georgia Experiment Station, sue and be sued, plead and be im
pleaded, in the name and for the benefit of this State. In the
event no acceptable response is made to the advertisement author
ized by the provisions of Section 111 of this Act, the Board shalj
proceed to purchase a site for said Georgia Experiment Station at
some central point in this State; Provided , that a purpose to pur
chase, receive, or sell, as authorized by this Act, shall first have
been formally made known in detail to the Governor, and shall
have received his endorsement and approval.
Sec. V. Be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That a
minute record of all receipts and expenditures of money shall bo
kept by the Board, and shall quarterly be submitted to the
Governor for his inspection.
Sec. VI. Be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid , That
the specific object of said Georgia Experiment Station shall be to
determine the capacity of new plants for acclimation; the
rnanurial value of fertilizers and composts; making soil tests ana
testing the purity and vitality of seeds; examining grasses and
other plants; investigating the growth, requirements and compaiv
ative value of different crops ; studying the economic production
of milk and butter, and of conducting such other tests, and making
such other investigations and experiments in the field as are
3