Newspaper Page Text
SUPPLEMENT.
ClECULAB No. 119. 1
New Series. /
CROP REPORT
FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST, 1889.
Returned to the Department op Agriculture August 1,1889.
State of Georgia, Department op Agriculture, 1
Atlanta, Ga., August 9, 1889. j
THE WEATHER.
The seasons since July 1, have been all that could be desired in
nearly every section of the State. In some counties rains have been
excessive; but only a few cases of actual injury to crops have been
reported.
COTTON.
The condition of the cotton crop has steadily advanced since the
date of July 1, and has become more nearly uniform in the different
sections of the State. The condition in those counties in which it
was lowest a month ago has very greatly improved ; while in those
reporting very high condition then, the reports are more sober and
the estimates somewhat lower. It is generally true that both high
and low conditions are somewhat exaggerated, by hopes on the one
hand, and apprehensions on the other. One month ago the general
average condition for the entire State was 83 ; the average now
(August 1) is 90—7 points higher. On August 1,1888, the condition
was 89—one point lower.
The improvement in the condition of the cotton crop is due, of
course, to the general prevalence of good seasons—plenty of rain and
sun heat, with warm nights. The rains are now excessive, and it is
apprehended that a severe drouth will occur during August which
would prove very damaging, owing to the succulent condition of the
plants.
CORN AND OTHER CROPS.
The corn crop promises the largest yield within ten years past. The
drouths that occurred in April and May have been relieved by copious
general rains, in good time to enable the crop to recover. Farmers
are enthusiastic over the bright promises of a rich harvest. The
same remarks will apply with more or less force to all the minor
crops cultivated. A glance at the tabular report which follows, will
6how that every crop, without exception, has made a material advance
in condition. Corn, from 92 to 101 ; rice, from 90 to 94; sugarcane,
from 87 to 94; sweet potatoes, from 79 to 92.
Melons have not yielded as large profits as last year, the reports
showing 91 as compared with those of the same date in 1888.
PEACHES AND GRAPES.
The promised yield of these two fruit crops of one and two months
ago has been even more than realized, especially of peaches. The
yield, both in quantity and quality, has probably never been equalled
in the history of the State, and the profits have been exceedingly
satisfactory.
Consolidated Crop Report for August, 1889.—By Sections.
sections.
North Georgia
Middle Georgia
Southwest Georgia..
East Georgia
Southeast Georgia...
Average for the State, August 1,1889
Average for the State, July 1,1SS9
Average for the State, August 1,1888 .
Condition and pros
pect compared with
an average.
Gordon, Habersham, Lumpkin, Murray, Pickens, Polk, Rabun, Towns,
Union, Walker, White and Whitfield.—Total, 18.
MIDDLE GEORGIA.
Adopted bp entire county: Bibb®, Butts, Campbell, Clarke, Clayton,
Columbia, Coweta, Elbert, Fayette, Greene, Hancock, Henry, Jasper,
Jones, Lincoln, McDuffie, Meriwether, Monroe, Morgan, Newton, Oconee,
Oglethorpe, Pike, Putnam, Rockdale, Spalding, Talbot, Taliaferro®, Troup,
Walton, Warren and Wilkes.—Total 32.
Adopted by certain districts: Baldwin, Carroll, DeKalb, Douglas, Fulton,
Harris, Heard and Upson.—Total S.
Rejected by vote : Taliaferro; afterwards adopted by special legislative
enactment.
Ao elections held:—Total 0.
SOUTHWEST GEORGIA.
Adopted by entire county: Houston, Lee and Muscogee.—Total, 3.
Adopted by certain districts: Chattahoochee, Crawford, Dougherty,
Macon, Marion, Quitman, Randolph,Schley,Stewart, Sumter and Taylor.—
Total, 11.
No elections held: Baker, Berrien, Brooks, Calhoun, Clay, Colquitt,
Decatur, Dooly, Early, Irwin, Lowndes, Miller, Mitchell, Terrell, Thomas,
Webster, Wilcox and Worth.—Total, 18.
EAST GEORGIA.
Adopted by entire county: Richmond.—Total, 1.
Adopted by certain districts: Burke, Pulaski, Screven, Twiggs, Wash
ington and Wilkinson.—Total, 6.
Rejected by vote: Four districts in Washington; adopted by three
districts.
No elections held: Bulloch, Dodge, Emanuel, Glascock, Jefferson, John
son, Laurens, Montgomery, Tatnail and Telfair.—Total, 10.
SOUTHEAST GEORGIA.
Adopted by entire county: None.—Total, 0.
Adopted by certain disiricts: None.—Total, 0.
Rejected by vote: Chatham.—Total, ].
No elections held: Appfing, Bryan, Camden, Charlton, Clinch, Coffee,
Echols, Effingham, Glynn, Liberty, McIntosh, Pierce, Ware and Wayne.
—Total, 14.
RECAPITULATION—ENTIRE STATE.
Adopted by entire county in ,. 37 Counties.
Adopted by certain districts in 36 “
Rejected by vote 3 “
No elections held 61 “
Total . . 137 “
*Ry Legislative Act.
REPLIES TO QUESTIONS ADDRESSED TO ORDINARIES
AND CROP CORRESPONDENTS.
NORTH GEORGIA.
THE RESULTS OF THE OPERATION OF THE
FENCE” LAW OF 1872-80.
NO
The Act establishing the Department of Agriculture, approved February
28, 1874, provides:—
“ The said Commissioner shall give attention to the subject of fencing,
and shall report at such times as he may deem proper upon said subject, as
hereinbefore set forth.”
In pursuance of the above provision, H011. Thomas P. Jones, first Com
missioner of Agriculture, made an effort in September, 1875, to ascertain
the “ annual cost of fencing crops,” and the “ annual cost of fencing stock.”
His report for that month (Circular 18, Old Series), says:
“The answers to the question, 1 what is the annual cost of fencing crops
in your county,’ are made on such varied bases that no definite results can
be derived from them. The same is true of the answers to the question as
to the cost of ‘ fencing stock.’ The conclusions drawn from a careful study
of all the answers are, that such is the diversity of circumstances and in
terests in Georgia that a general law requiring either the fencing of
crops or stock is unwise. In the mountain region of North, and the wire-
grass region of South Georgia, fencing stock would be not only a hardship,
but absolutely impracticable, the cultivated area being very small compared
with the stock range, and yet the flocks not sufficiently large to require the
constant care of herdsmen. In the farming and planting regions of North,
Middle and Southwest Georgia, on the contrary, the present law requiring
crops to be fenced is equally a hardship, and, with the present system ol
labor, almost impracticable. The relations of cultivated and pasture areas
in the latter sections are the reverse of those in the former, and hence," a
law applicable to one is inapplicable, if not unjust, to the other. How then
is the question to be met. Very plainly; by leaving the question of “fenc
ing erops ’ or ‘fencing stock ’ to be determined by the free-holders of each
county.”
“ The same question was diseussed in the May Crop Report of 1879. In
the June Crop Report for 1882, I pursued the subject still further, and
published the F.ence Laws of force, for the information of farmers. It is
well known that many counties and parts of counties have adopted the
E revisions of the Act of 1872, and in this year of prosperity and plenty, 1
ave deemed it a fitting time to collate such statistics and facts as will
exhibit the results of the operation of the law,,and ascertain to what extent
they have been satisfactory. It is not my intention to give my own views,
or any mere theories on the subject. It is made, under our wise legislation,
the privilege of the citizens of each county to decide for themselves whether
their condition and circumstances will justify the adoption of the law.
The logic of facts is worth more than that of theories.
It is a significant fact that almost without exception the “ no fence ” law
has given general satisfacf ion where it has been adopted.
For the purpose of eliciting official information as to what counties have
adopted the law. I first issued circulars, asking the necessary questions, to
the Ordinaries of the sevWal counties. Most of these replied and their answers
are incorporated with the notes on the subject from Crop Correspondents.
To the usual questions to correspondents there were appended the
following:
What has been the effect of the operation of the “no fence ” law: (1) On
the acreage in farm crops ; (2) on the quality of live stock; (3) on the
quantity and quality of butter and milk produced; (4) on the quantity and
quality of beef and pork products; (5) on the general prosperity of farmers,
tranquility of neighborhoods, and docility of stock?
It will be-observed that in many instances the answers refer to the sev
eral divisions of the above question by the numerals prefixed.
List of Counties which have adored the “ No Fence Law,” or rejected the
same, and of those in which no elections have been held, with notes of
results:
NORTH GEORGIA.
Adopted by entire county: Hart and Jackson.
Adopted by certain districts: Banks, Bartow, Cherokee, Cobb, Dawson,
Floyd Forsyth, Gwinnett, Hall, Madison, Milton and Paulding.—Total, 12.
Rejected by vote: Haralson (813th district,- only), Madison.—Total, 2.
No elections held: Catoosa, Chattooga, Dade, Fannin, Floyd, Gilmer,
Banks: No election. Bartow: One district adopted the “ no fence” law
in 18S8, and it gives general satisfaction.—Okd’y. Catoosa: No election,
Chattooga: No election. This is not a “ no fence ” law county. I wish it
was.—W. F. T. Cherokee: Three districts in 1887. Satisfactory.—Ord’y.
Cobb: Ten districts at various times. Gives satisfaction.—Ord’y. Dade:
No election. Dawson: District No. 1016, in 1888. Satisfaction in that dis
trict.—Ord’y. Only went into effect last February. Farmers generally
well pleased. Stock in good condition. Five per cent, more land in culti
vation. Prospects of farmers hopeful. No trouble exists.—J. C. S. Fan
nin: No election. Floyd: Only one‘no fence’district in the county, and
the law has just gone into operation.—J. P. McC. Forsyth: Five districts.
Gives general satisfaction.—Ord’y. 1. There has been an increase in acre
age in the ‘no fence’ districts. 2. A decided improvement. 3. Increase in
quantity and of a great deal better quality. 4. No falling off in quantity,
and quality decidedly improved; pork will likely fall off some, though stock
hogs improved. 5. Get along better without fences; perfectly peacable in
neighborhoods in stock law districts | stock very docile.—T. S. L. Frank
lin: Eight districts, from 1887 to 1889. General satisfaction.—Ord’y. There
has been some increase in acreage. Cows are 50 per cent, better, and more
of them. Milk and butter good and in excess of demand. No material
change in pork, but the quantity and quality of beef has improved 50 per
cent. Peace and quietude reigns, and stock are all sleek and fat.—J. B. D.
McW. A portion of the districts in this county have no fence. Opera
tion of ‘no fence’ law very good. Acreage in farm crops very much improved.
Quality of live stock as well as quality and quantiny of milk and butter,
much improved. Beef better. Hogs not quite so numerons but better. I
think the farmers are generally in better condition, the tranquility of
neighborhoods better and the stock more easily managed.—A. W. Gilmer:
No election. Gordon: I regret very much to be compelled to say that we
stick to fence, and poor stock.—A. R. Gwinnett: Seven districts, 1884 to
1887. Does not give general satisfaction. Those who voted for it would
not have it repealed.—Ord’y. More land in cultivation. Live stock, 50
per cent, better; milk and butter, 75 per cent, better; more and better
beef.—M. P. K. Habersham: No election. The people are almost unani
mously opposed to the “ no fence” law.—Ord’y. Hall: Four districts, in
1SS4 to 1S87. Entire satisfaction.—Ord’y. Not satisfactory to renters, but
a saving to landlords. Stock have improved both in numbers and corfdi-
tion.—W. F. W. A. R. S. gives substantially the same statements as the
foregoing. Haralson-. Election held in 813th district, and defeated.—
Ord’y. Hart: Entire county, in 1884. Gives general satisfaction.—Ord’y.
There was some dissatisfaction at first, but I think the people are now gen
erally content, and there has been a great improvement in all respects.—
B. B. P. Jackson: Entire county. General satisfaction.—Ord’y. I do
not see that the working of the “no fence” law in this county has materially
reduced the average in farm crops. On the whole, I think the adoption of
the law has had a tendency to improve stock of all kinds. Milk and but
ter increase in quantity and is far superior in quality. The quality of beef
and pork is also superior, but the quantity, I believe, is lessened. A ma
jority of the farmers are prospering in a greater degree under this system
than before its adoption; very little ill feeling has sprung from the opera
tions of this law; roguish and unruly stock are quickly gotten rid of.—G.
M. D. M. [ “ C. B. I.” and “J. J.” substantially agree and concur in above
statement]. Lumpkin: No election. Madison: Election held in some
districts and the law defeated.—Ord’y. Milton: All except one district.
General satisfaction.—Ord’y. The “no-fenee” law has worked a great
improvement. One hundred per cent, improvement in quantity and
quality of butter and milk, and quality of live stock; and the general
condition of farmers is fifty per cent better, and the docility of stock one
hundred per cent, better than under the old law.—J. H. S. Murray: No
election. Paulding: Five districts. Partial satisfaction.—Okd’y. Itisgiviug
general satisfaction. There is less depredation and strife in the no-fence
districts than there is in the fence districts. Fewer hogs but as much
meat; less cows but more milk, with less trouble and expense than it
would be to keep good fences in the most of our county. There are some
sections that it is possibly best as it is— P. P. McB. Pickens: No election.
My age is seventy years, and I hope to see such^a law in force. Next to a
dog law it is most important to farmers. It costs more to build and keep
up°a fence than it does to buy the farm.—B. F. R. Polk: No election.
Rabun: No election. Towns: No election. Union: No election.
I think such a law is greatly
Alas! Alas! No stock
Walker: No election. White: No election,
needed.—F. R. D. Whitfield: No election,
law.—W. C. R.
MIDDLE GEORGIA.
Baldwin: Two districts, 1884-85. Gives satisfaction.—Ord’y. Every
body is pleased with it in the two districts that have adopted it.—H. C. V.
Bibb: Adopted by Act of Legislature. Gives satisfaction.—Ord’t.
The acreage in farm crops has increased ; the quantity as well as the qual-
of ten per cent, in area cultivated. The quality of live stock is better ; the
quality of both butter and milk better, but decrease in quantity. Less
beef, but of better quality. Stock easily managed. Everybody, I think,
satisfied, and those who opposed the law are now in favor of it.—J. J. S.
It has added 25 per cent, to the prosperity of farmers, and greatly to the
tranquility of neighborhoods and to the docility of live-stock.—R. J. T.
Very little effect on the acreage in farm crops, for while many spots h.*ve
been cultivated that could not have been profitably fenced, there has l»eon
probably as large an area of farming lands devoted to pasturage. Stock
generally of much better quality. More milk and butter and of letter
quality. Better quality of beef, though less in quantity, and about same
as to pork. No marked change in prosperity aud tranquility of neighbors.
A few eases of selfishness, when by consent stock are allowed to run out
in winter. Stock more docile.—J. J. B. Many valuable acres are now
cultivated that otherwise would not be if we were deprived of the “ no
fence” law. The improvement in live-stock has l>een beyond the expecta
tion of nearly every body. Butter and milk has been almost doubled and of
quite a superior quality. Beef more plentiful and much cheaper. The
interest in pork more closely looked after and the quantity and quality
increased. It has been the grandest law that was ever given the agricultural
world.—F. H. S. [The report of “ J. S. D.” substantially agrees with the
above.] Carroll: Ten districts in 18S6-7-8. Generally pleased.—Ord’y.
The effect of the “ no fence ” law is wonderfully good. 1. Ou the acreage in
farm crops cannot be estimated. 2. The quality of live-stock slightly im
proved. 3. On the quantity and quality of butter and milk produced. 4.
Beef and pork products 25 per cent, better. 5. The general prosperity of
fanners much better than for years. Tranquility of neighborhoods better.
—I. N. R. The effect has been wonderful. Everything more and better.
It is the thing for farmers. It works no hardship on any one.—S. C. C.
The people generally well pleased. Improvement of milk, butter and
quality of cattle has been 25 per cent. Don’t think hogs have improved.
In fact I think we have lost as much in hogs as we have gained in cattle,
owing to want of pastures.—M. R. R. Clarke: Entire county—1883. Uni
versal satisfaction.—Ord’y. Clayton: Entire county—1S81. Some little
dissatisfaction where landlords are too close with tenants in regard to
pastures.—Ord’y. 1. It has had a good effect. 2. Has been increased. 3.
Both have been increased. 4. Think it better. 5. While there are some
complaints, though they are few, and it may work a hardship to some, yet
considering everything, I think it tends to the general good of the farmer.
* * Great improvement in stock, butter, milk, etc. We never had such
good beef and butter before] nor were they ever so cheap.—W. P. J. Co
lumbia: Entire county—1886. A portion well satisfied. Movement on
foot to repeal.—Ord’y. 1. The acreage remains the same. 2. An improve
ment in live-stock. 3. Quality of butter better, but quantity about the
same. 4. Quality better, quantity less. 5. I think upon the whole the
stock law is a benefit.—M. I. B. Coweta: Entire county—1881. General
satisfaction.—Ord’y. The “no fence” law has been worth thousands of
dollars, and has greatly improved the morals and neighborly feelings of the
entire county.—W. F. S. [The above is substantially concurred in by W.
A. S."] DeKalb: All but one district. General satisfaction.—Ord’y. It
has reduced all stock, and exterminated sheep. No increase in acreage.
Some improvement in the quantity and quality of milk and butter. Some
improvement in pork, but none in beef, owing to want of pasture. Gen
eral prosperity not so great as before the law.—W. H. C. Douglas: Four
districts—1888-89. Can’t say—never repealed.—Ord’y. It has given satis
faction beyond all expectation. Some strong “ fence ” men already say it
is the best law ever passed. Some increase in acreage, but not much
improvement in stock yet. Have not had time. “ No fence ” should have
commenced with emancipation.—W. H. N. Elbert: Entire county—
1886. Gives satisfaction.—Ord’y. All your questions may be answered,
favorably. I can see a general improvement in the prosperity of the farm
ers. Less repairing of old fences, and more time to enriching and improving
the land. Have heard of but little discord among neighbors. Stock
generally of better grade and decidedly more docile and gentle.—J. D. B.
Fayette: Whole county—1884. Does not give entire satisfaction.—Ord’y.
1. Acreage is slightly increased and farmers have selected the best
portions to cultivate. 2. Stock better. 3. Quality and quantity both
better. 4. No increase in quantity, quality better. 5. The prosperity of
the farmer would be better if there were not so many trusts and middlemen.
The tranquility of neighbors good. No fuss about stock destroying crops.
Stock more docile than formerly. * * * “ J. G. P.” can’t say that it has
increased the area in crops, but there has been some improvement in quality
of stock, especially in cows and hogs, and in quantity and quality of milk
and butter, and quality of beef. Stock very docile, and perfect harmony
between neighbors. Fulton: All but three districts in 1882-3. General
satisfaction.—Ord’y. 1. Falling off of ten per cent. 2. Much better. 3.
Increase of fifteen per cent. 4. Less quantity, better quality. 5. Some
dissatisfaction, but all are in better circumstances than heretofore. Stock
a»re better cared for and we are all happy.—G. M. F. Greene: Entire
county—1883. So far as I know it gives satisfaction.—Ord’y. The people
are generally satisfied with the stock law, but would choose to have their
farms fenced for their own use. There is no increase in acreage of crops
from that cause, that 1 know of. Better live-stock, more milk and butter,
but it would be strange if in this age of progress all these things should not-
be better than only a few years ago.—J. W. S. It has been beneficial. I
believe there are more fine stock, more milk and butter, as good beef and
as many hogs, and much less trouble with stock than before.—A. N. A.
Hancock: Entire county—1884. Has never been repealed.—Ord’y.
Twenty^ive per cent, increase in acreage, and in quality of live-stock ; 50
per cent, increase in quantity of butter and milk; 10 per cent, increase in
quantity and quality of beef and pork; and 3SJ per cent, increase in general
prosperity, tranquility of neighborhoods, and docility of stock.—J. W. C.
Harris: All but one district. Gives general satisfaction.—Ord’y. The
stock law has been iu force in this district since January 1, 18S8. In this
immediate section about 25 per cent, of the land is in cultivation ; the
balance mostly in original forest with abundant rail timber. The result of
the “ no fence ” law is fewer stock and no perceptible improvement in the
quality, rather the reverse, if anything, especially in the line of hogs. No
perceptible improvement in the condition of farmers. Stock generally
easily controlled and therefore but little disturbance from depredation of
stock. Pasture fences all new.—J. B. P. Heard: East side of the river—
1883; district No. 939—1888. Very good satisfaction.—Ord’y. Henry: Whole
county—1S82-3. Entire satisfaction.—Ord’y. The effect has been good. 10
percent, larger area planted. Quality of live-stock 10 percent, better. Quan
tity and quality of mrlk and butter improved 20 per cent. The quantity and
quality of beef much improved. Pork not so good. Farmers prosperous. Stock
easily controlled.—J. N. C. W. Many farms have been greatly improved
by moving the old fences and planting crops in their stead. We have
better stock, both cows and hogs, but not so many. The milk cows have
better care, and of course we have more and better butter.—J. R.
C. Jasper: Entire county—1883. Popular with land holders.—Ord’y.
Jones: Entire county—1887. Does not give satisfaction. Some ‘stock-
law’ men violate it by permitting their stock to graze on unimproved lands,
resulting in depredations.—Ord’y. Can’t perceive any difference in quan
tity or quality of butter and milk, pork and beef. Neighborhood and indi
vidual animosities arise over the same. No effect on docility of stock, so
far as we can see.—R. T. R. Lincoln: Entire county—1882. Gives pretty
general satisfaction. Of course there arc a few who always opposed it.—
Ord’y. I little difference in acreage in cultivation. Fewer live stock and
about the same in quality. No difference in quantity and quality of but
ter and beef. A falling off in pork. The stock law has affected the pros
perity of farmers but little ; but the tranquility a great deal. Formerly a
continuous row was going on in every neighborhood ; now comparatively
ity of milk and butter has improved fifty per cent; the quality of beef and[ few. There was much more stealing and killing of mischievous stock
pork has increased one hundred,per cent., and the quantity has decreased r under Hie old dispensation. There is a great saving of labor now in fence
fifty per cent. The general prosperity of farmers seems greater than for, making, giving more time to other farm improvements and making ma-
many years.—B. L. J. 1. Acreage increased 8 per cent. 2. Much im-j nure.—A. A. C. Lincoln: I can’t say that “no fence law” has had any
proved, but not as many neat cattle by one-half. 3. Less milk and but- | appreciable effect in either increasing or diminishing the acreage in culti-
ter of'superior quality and largely increased per cow. 4. No beeves vat Ion, and while it has had a marked effect in the improvement of cattle,
raised for market; as much pork as formerly and better. 5. Better con-1 which are less in number, yet better m quality; and also a decided se
dition, more money and timber saved. No trouble about impounding stoek. j provement in milk and butter, both quantity and quality. Other stock,
If taken up they are sent‘home without cost to owner, unless he j sheep and hogs, have decreased in numbers and quality, they being ani-
is obstreperous and contrary. Stock all gentle. Many cows broke
to the halter, something never heard of before.—W. D. A. J.
Bulbs: Entire county, in 1882. Gives satisfaction. No legislation since
the war, pertaining to agriculture, approaches it in value.—Ord’ y. It has tention. As the people become more accustomed to the change, I be
had good effect. One-tenth more landin cultivation. 2. 25 percent. better. i it will W altogether advantageous to the majority in every way.—J. 3
which require .more range. It has not as yet added much to the
pro-perity of the farmers, nor to the promotion of tranquility in neighbor
hoods ; but in some neighborhoods has been promotive of strife and con-
I belie%’e
M. D.
3. 50 per cent.lbetter and quality good deal better. 4. More and better hogs; M'-Dajfie: Entire county—1885. With good many it gives satisfaction, .
more and finer beef. 5. Farmers are more prosperous and we harve no dis- very Hi tie said about it.—Ord’y. Some 20 per cent, increase iu acreage of
turbance about stock, and the cow and hog are becoming as one family, 'farm crops, and about the same per cent, in the quality of live stock;
and as great pets in many instances as the house cat-and dog.—H. C. T. quality and quantity of butter much increased. We have bettor beef and
Campbell: Entire county, 1881. Gives satisfaction.—Ord’y. An increase as much of it as under the old plan. But very little litigation about tres-