Orangeburg times. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1872-1875, 1873-04-24
ton it Deserves. A writer from Colum
bia Co., Georgia, states:

tioH IL ASSerNeS. "a writer from Colum-
bia Co., Georgia, states:
although the benefits following rotation are
! lackfowleaged by the majority oftfarmers in
THIS section, yet is is practlced by comparatively
few. Many think the extensive use of "com-
mercial Fertilizers does away with the neces.
sity for this. annual change of crops, and the
fertilizer used is selected with direct reference
to the crop to be produced, and the ciop is thus
fed and grows by this outside help, thus preuent
ing too great drain upon the soil itself This
Greats an idea in the minds of those who prac-
tice this system that the outlay of money is a
salve to the soils, and TO this extent not only
preserves but increases its fertility; others
maintain that this extensive and general Use of
stimulating man,fres, while they may and do
increase the production, do it at the expense
and the ultimate deterioration of the SOIL. in
other words they "kill the land" and the uld,
worn-uut lands, Of Virginia are cited in yindi-
cation of this theory"
The following remarks of the Com
missions relate to the carelessness of our
people in making calculations of profit
by estimating us nett gain, items which
should be 6educed from the value of the
farm itself
"No mistake is more common than that of
overestinatins the profits of farm products
sold. from overlooking the fact that part of
the value of the farm itself is sold with them
If one owns farm, the intrinsic value of which
ION the lasis of its productive capacityl is,
$4,000, and SO conducts his farming operations
that at the end of the year that value ID dinin-
shed $50. he may commit the error Of count
ing in with his legitimate profits Sl0O more
than he could had he managed il 50 as to in.
crease its value $50. '21 -
fthis Indifference is overlooked, the farmer who
pursues the former method may, in the outset.
make n fine show of profits ever him who pur-
sues the latter; but in the course OF years the
difference between an annual accretion of
capital, and yearly diminution Of it, will be
very likely to mike NIL the difference between
success and ruin.'
The RELATION or SUCCESSFUL FARM.
ING TO HOME CoNsUMfr1oN.-A cor.
respondent referring to the above i'm
portant consideration, says Of the South
ern people:
"All consume all they raise except cotton,
ard fully one-half do not raise as much us they
consume /; the few who do are the most prosper
GUS farmers, and only ones who keep ont of
debt Nearly. all consume the proceeds Of
their cotton crop in the shape of meat, corn,
hay, &c, bought abroad. All agree that while
it may not be profitable to raise other field
products than cotton for market, it is profitable
tocmake enough for home consumption. In
the cotton district, those who use fertilizers and
plant grain enough for home consumption are
making money most rapidly. Experience has
proved that only those farmers are making any
clear profit who make their Own supplies and
nave their cotton money clear Our farmers
consuu c all except cotton, and that is con-
s,sAed by three-four.hs Of them in the way of
procuring supplies Of bacon and corn. The
great majority no profit in any crop but
cotton, which is yet considered king but the
very few progressive men here consider diver
sifed husbandry best for us-to raise home-sup-
plies, good cotton crops on small areas by high
manuring and good tillage, sheep on gradu-
ally increasing scale, yearly putting more land
into clover grass, &c. 1t is easy to demon
h'ie'S that VIC Soteoh IIdCtlCcu Dy
most of our farmers is ruinous, and that the
diversified system is the only profitable one"
Our space will not permit longer
notice of this interesting Report in this
issue. We may take it up again at M
other time, and in the meanwhile COM
mend the pamphlet to our farming COM
munity