Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1869-04-08
AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS.

The annual report of the Agricultural bureau
has been published, but its statistics are for the
year before last It is announced therein, that in
1867 the proportion of land devoted to the cultiva-
ton of cotton, in the cotton States was "A per
cent while only SO per cent. was planted in corn.
This statement includes Tennessee, which is only
to limited extent, q cotton State. five leave
out Tennessee, it follows that over four-tenths OF
the whole area cultivated in the South, is occupied
by cotton and less than four tenths, by corn while
all other crops are allowed but two-tenths, or one
fifth. In South Carolina the proportions were
cotton 81, corn ~, and other crops % per cent.
The above quoted figures are suggestive, and
full of interest also, for the reason that we have no
ground for supposing any material change in the
relative proportions of the same crops now being
planted. If there be any difference, there will be
more cotton and less corn planted in 1869. Now
let US examine the results. The report says the
average yield, per acre, was 100 pounds, and per
hand, 1850 pounds. i" In South Carolina the yield
was l45 pounds per acre, and l,4O0 pounds per
hand.
The crop of 1857 was nearly all sold at low prices
and that simply because the planters were not able
to hold it. Their necessities were great and press
ing, and the vast majority were forced to sell in
order to buy-what? Corn and wheat which they
might have raised on their own land. The Bureau
report furnishes no statistics of the amount Of pro-
visions sold to Southern planters at high figures,
during the winter of 1867 and spring of 1858. If
these statistics could be furnished we suspect the
fact could be amply proved that fully one-half Of
that cotton crop was turned into corn and bacon.
The cotton crop Of last year yielded double profits,
while the corn crop was also good enough to ena-
bic the planter to pocket his cotton money. Still
it is not yet certain that the supply Of corn was en-
tirely sufficient 1t may yet be necessary to i'm:
port considerable corn This is but repetition OF
the history of former years. 1t is the old story of
robbing Peter to pay Paul, which has ever been
such favorite policy in Southern farming. The
only objection to it is that it is so uncertain. In
1867 it laid most of its supporters fiat on their
backs, while in 1868 itset themup on high horse.
The practicable questionis is what is this policy going
to do for US this year? Who can say whether the
price of cotton is going to be high enough next
Fall to pay for possible deficiency in other and
absolutely necessary crops? The price Of cotton
depends on so many and so different causes, that
to predict it is mere guess work with all but the
favored few who can partially control it. A sud-
den war, and such is not impossible, may depress
it. by raising the value of articles more essential,
and destroy its availability to planters by keeping
the crop shut out from market An overcrop
would do as much, and an unexpected financial
crash would equally destroy the market, by ma
king money scarce, buyers scarcer, and sellers
eager. Are farmers really willing to trust their
whole capital to such an uncertainty, or are they
going to provide for what they know to be essen
tial to a successful carrying on of their business
by planting grain enough to ensure them against
Lbeing forced to buy it at a sacrifice Of cotton ?
Time will show.