Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1876-02-24
Agritaltatal Repartttent
MORE MANURE...LESS LABOR. $

1t does seem that the experience of the past
would be sufficient to deter the farmers Of
our country from planting vast quantities Of
old, poor, worn-out land, on which nothing
can be raised. What on earth can induce
men who have been farming for many years,
and know that some of their lands, without
manure, will not pay for working them, still
continue to plant them, we do not know. Null
titudes of farmers in our country hire hands
to work lands that would be dear at any
price. No farmer can afford to work three
acres of land for a bale of cotton. It is a
losing business to work land that will not pro-
duce more than ten bushels of corn to the
acre. 1t takes as much labor to prepare and
plant an acre Of poor land, as it does to pre-.
pare and plant an acre of rich land. 1t may
not require as much labor to work crop on
an acre of land on which grass can not grow,
as it will on an acre that is rich.
Would it not be wise plan in the farmers
of the country to turn all their poor and un-
productive lands out and work only the rich
spots? In fact, it is on these, at present, all
the produce of the country is made. On
many farms there may be enough Of cleared
land to run ten plows, but not more than one
fifth of it is worth working. The whole is
worked but only one-ffth produces anything.
The other four.6fths scarcely produce the seed
that was required to plant it. Would it not
be wise policy to turn the four-ffths out, let it
grow up in grass or pines, and put all the
manure on the one-6th? BY this method, a
great expense in the way of labor would be
dispensed with, and both the cultivated and
uncultivated lands would increase in value.
The hire of one hand will purchase two tons
of the best guano in the market. The ques-
tion is, which is worth the most, good hand
to work poor land, or two tons Of guano On
good land? In those countries where farm
ing is carried to the highest state Of perfec.
ton, man plants no more land than he can
manure. In our country; farmers generally
manure the poor spots and let those portions
of the fields which will produce something,
20 without manure. This is the most profit
less way that manure can be applied. To
sprinkle little guano on poor spot Of land,
and expect good crop, is about as silly as to
take dead poor horse, give him good feed of
corn, and then hitch him to wagon and ex'
pect him to draw heavy load The old fel-
low needs something more than feed of
corn, no matter how large or how good, to
put him in condition to do good pulling.
He needs muscles. Poor land needs some
thing besides gusno in order that it may pro-
duce crop that will pay the expense of
working it. 1t needs vegetable and animal
matter, in large quantities, worked into it.
Almost every farmer has his crop, every
year, spoiled by some poor field. One halfof
the land he works is fair, productive land !;
the other half brings nothing. 1t would have
been far better for him to have turned out the
half that was poor, and bestowed all the la
Dor upon the productive half. Half the horse
power, half the labor, and half Of all the
expenses of making crop, would have been
dispensed with, and the crop, instead of being
lessened, would have been increased. The
time that was spent in cultivating the half
that produced scarcely anything, would have
been more pro6tably employed in cultivating
the crop growing on the other halt. The
productive fields were neglected that the poor
and unproductive fields might be run over
with the plows and hoes for absolutely nothing.
It is no extravaganza to say that an acre
of good land, with reasonable amount of
manure, may be made to produce bale of
cotton, or thirty bushels Of corn. Any man
could work, with ease, eight acres Of such land
in corn and four in cotton, and harvest crop
of wheat and oats, besides. He would make,
according to this calculation, two hundred
and forty bushels Of corn and four bales Of
cotton. This would be tremendous average
crop.
The average yield of corn to the acre in
South Carolina, for 1875, was nine bushels
Evidently, vast number Of acres must have
been in cultivation which produced not only
relatively, but, absolutely, nothing. Had
one-half of the land that was cultivated in
corn been turned out, and the labor and time
which was spent in cultivating it, been bes-
towed in cultivating better the other half, the
aggregate yield would have been greater and
the average yield to the acre been doubled.
If two acres of land will yield twenty bushels
of corn, and one of the two acres will only
produce two bushels, it would be far better
for the cultivator to throw that acre out and
cultivate only the acre that will produce
eighteen bushels. No man can afford to cul-
tivate an acre of land for two bushels of
corn.
Since the labor system Of our country is in
badly organized condition, it does seem that
it would be wise in those farmers who have
large quantities Of exhausted lands, to turn
out all but the best spots, apply manure to
these, dispense with the labor necessary to
cultivate the poor land, and thus increase
their income by decreasing their expenses.
Every one who has made the experiment, is
aware that manure, of any kind, pays better
when applied to rich land than it does on poor
land A man may suppose that he is doing
good business when he, by the application of
FIVE dollars worth of guano to an acre of
land that, without the guano, would make
nothing, he makes five or six hundred pounds
of seed cotton to the acre. In fact, lis sink
ing money, if the cotton is made with hired
labor. It will cost more to make bale of
cotton, at that rate, than he can sell it for
when made. We venture the assertion that